Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Because Canada is a prosperous, stable, peaceful country with a strong rule of law and property rights. It’s about as safe a harbour as you can find for someone looking to park their money. It also has a very low barrier to foreign investment. Then add in the sustained boom in the Golden Horseshoe and the Lower Mainland, and Canadian real estate becomes almost a no-brainer as an investment.

Let’s hope the no brainer is as strong as we think.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1686718472540073984

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Let’s hope the no brainer is as strong as we think.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1686718472540073984

I thought this is what Conservatives wanted? Hasn't everyone been complaining about how housing prices are too high and it's Trudeau's fault?

[wireframe]

Building more housing doesn't solve the house price issue. House prices are climbing because of demand from investors, not families moving to the area and trying to find a place to live. We know this because there is not a significant population of homeless people trying to buy new build houses. Instead, we see existing landlords (individuals or corporations) buying more houses and renting them to people who could not secure the loan to buy themselves. It's a race for who can raise the most money through loan or corporate investment, which favours the existing wealthy interests.


From that perspective, the fix is to make investment in housing less attractive, which the federal government has the power to do. Not the will but definitely the power.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I thought this is what Conservatives wanted? Hasn't everyone been complaining about how housing prices are too high and it's Trudeau's fault?

It’s what’s coming, not what anyone wants.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

I thought this is what Conservatives wanted? Hasn't everyone been complaining about how housing prices are too high and it's Trudeau's fault?

Conservatives want higher and lower housing prices. Yoho can explain it to you.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is falsely scapegoating immigrants (and/or federal government immigration policy) for a problem that they are not causing. Canada's overall rate of population growth is currently at an all-time historical low, even with immigration levels being where they are now. Young Canadian couples are having fewer children than parents in previous generations did, and the number of immigrants we're brining in aren't even making up for that difference.

So that shows population growth targeted for about 1% in the future. As long as it is above 0%, is there any problem at all? We may have to target immigrants to the right portion of the demographic age pyramid to maintain an appropriate balance, but that seems like something we could mostly do as well.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Conservatives want higher and lower housing prices. Yoho can explain it to you.

Of course. Cons will lose it if housing prices tank, they don't actually want that.

We need to make owning multiple residential properties less attractive and limit the number of properties businesses and corporations can buy. Though this is problematic as well. There's no easy answer.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So that shows population growth targeted for about 1% in the future. As long as it is above 0%, is there any problem at all? We may have to target immigrants to the right portion of the demographic age pyramid to maintain an appropriate balance, but that seems like something we could mostly do as well.

I couldn't say what is optimal, although there are people who are experts in demographics and economics who can answer that question. I do know that population decline and a shrinking workforce is bad for the economy, though, and this is doubly problematic in a welfare state like most Western democracies where public services used predominantly by children (education) and seniors (healthcare, old age benefits, etc.) are paid for by the working population.

I'm sure there's a recommended "ideal" number for the percentage of a given country's population that should be working age adults and therefore a target birthrate + immigration rate necessary to achieve that number in any given year, but I don't know off-hand what that percentage is.

[Bill Bumface]

I wonder how much more housing we could build if we weren't allocating the material, labour and land to ~2000 sq. ft. per family.

Building a swath of smaller places (as has been done during previous population booms) could sure get us a lot more supply faster.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I wonder how much more housing we could build if we weren't allocating the material, labour and land to ~2000 sq. ft. per family.

Building a swath of smaller places (as has been done during previous population booms) could sure get us a lot more supply faster.

Yeah, that's the funny thing when people bring up housing start numbers from the '70s. Sure, we could probably build at that same rate relative to our population if the average detached house was 1,100 square feet like it was then.

[timun]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I fully claim right off the bat that I am not educated enough to solve any housing issues in this country. I don't care if it's the Liberals or Cons, what exactly are the steps that should be taken to help solve it? I really don't know. Is there something easy or obvious that I am missing?

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Whether you like him or not, Trudeau is being honest when he says that housing costs are largely outside the jurisdiction of the federal government. No government, Liberal, Conservative, or NDP can solve this issue at the federal level.

I don't disagree in principle with these comments; in fact, I think I'd go as far as to say it's not the feds' "fault", and I'm not entirely sure there's a politically palatable solution anymore. Which is why nothing has been done.

That said, whether it's federal jurisdiction or not, the perceived inaction in the face of this crisis is going to cost them dearly.

I think this is generally the best start to tackling the problem:

Originally Posted by wireframe

... the fix is to make investment in housing less attractive, which the federal government has the power to do. Not the will but definitely the power.

Real estate has always been full of speculators and investors, but government policy makes it much easier to own investment property than owning a primary residence.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I’m not sure our political and business leaders and institutions like the BoC and government regulators really understand how badly the housing crisis is undermining their legitimacy. A lot of Canadians are not very politically engaged. But everyone notices when the cost of putting a roof over their heads climbs relentlessly past the point of affordability. Canada’s institutional complacency and inability to address the crisis is a gift to populist of various stripes.

I agree, and it's really just a Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs thing: if you #### around, or are perceived by inaction to have ####ed around, with the very bottom of that pyramid—air, water, food, shelter, sleep, clothing, sex—people get very angry very quick. There's a simmering frustration among everyone who isn't in the "investor class" that is going to boil over.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is falsely scapegoating immigrants (and/or federal government immigration policy) for a problem that they are not causing. Canada's overall rate of population growth is currently at an all-time historical low, even with immigration levels being where they are now. Young Canadian couples are having fewer children than parents in previous generations did, and the number of immigrants we're brining in aren't even making up for that difference.

I’m not scapegoating anyone. I understand the economic argument and necessity of immigration. But another demographic trend is Canadians are living longer and seniors are staying in their homes. So housing stock is not being freed up as the population ages.

It defies all fundamentals of economics to act as though there’s no correlation between the number of people moving to a city looking for homes and the cost of homes in those communities. Do you honestly think that in alternative timelines where Canada had half the immigration for the last 10 years, and where Canada had twice the immigration there would be no difference in the price of real estate in Canada’s cities?

This isn’t an either/or problem. Yes, let’s build new homes. ####loads of them. Let’s densify. But we should also be calibrating our immigration levels to the availability of housing stock. The number of builds in the last five years should inform immigration targets. Build then grow is more prudent than grow then hope we build.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is falsely scapegoating immigrants (and/or federal government immigration policy) for a problem that they are not causing. Canada's overall rate of population growth is currently at an all-time historical low, even with immigration levels being where they are now. Young Canadian couples are having fewer children than parents in previous generations did, and the number of immigrants we're brining in aren't even making up for that difference.

You're not really using a graph that ends in 2020 to argue that "Canada's overall rate of population growth is currently at an all-time historical low, even with immigration levels being where they are now."

In reality, Canada's population growth rate, once immigration opened up post pandemic, hit 2.7% in 2022, the highest annual population growth rate on record since 1957.

With supply chain issues, increasing interest rates and already sky-high property prices affecting affordability, there is no reasonable argument that can be made that now is the right time for record high immigration. Immigration rates can be ratcheted back up once the overall housing situation stabilizes through rates, supply chain issues are resolved and building capacity allows.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Conservatives want higher and lower housing prices. Yoho can explain it to you.

It's simple you see, higher prices for sellers and lower prices for buyers.

Probably the only way to do it is to have the government subsidize property transactions. But that will create debt, unless they cut the business taxes so that businesses are so successful that they employ 345% of the population and revenues from income taxes spike, without the need to charge more tax or provide more services. This is really gonna show those communists how an open market economy is supposed to work as soon as it all comes together.

*And trust me, nobody will take advantage of the subsidies by double dipping.

[Bill Bumface]

Public housing units over history.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yeah, that's the funny thing when people bring up housing start numbers from the '70s. Sure, we could probably build at that same rate relative to our population if the average detached house was 1,100 square feet like it was then.

If you did just average square footage of all units would it still be up significantly? Because we building 1000srft townhouses much more now it likely makes less sense to build small houses.

I don’t know where to look for that data though.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Maybe that’s something that needs to change. Maybe people need to recognize that if we treat our home like an investment to leverage, our kids won’t be able to afford to buy their own home without $100k+ from the bank of mom and dad.

It's not treating it as an investment, per se. It's that if you want to start a business and need cash to do so, a house is a good place to borrow it. Banks aren't keen on lending to these kinds of enterprises. It's not without its risks and issues, but it's generally more plausible than financing through an institution and it's also cheaper than unsecured financing.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Or, you know, their marriage, like anyone else's is just NONE OF OUR/YOUR ****ING BUSINESS. They owe us nothing in that regard. Stop your ridiculous chirping.

Ridiculous chirping? I made one post and was speaking about politicians in general. It's not like anyone else in their position would have handled it any differently.

I agree with you that it's none of our business and I wish he could have said "my personal life is personal and I will not be discussing it out of respect for my children". Of course media wouldn't allow that. Instead he has to deny it and then wait for "the right time" to announce things. Like his personal life has any bearing on my life.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is falsely scapegoating immigrants (and/or federal government immigration policy) for a problem that they are not causing. Canada's overall rate of population growth is currently at an all-time historical low, even with immigration levels being where they are now. Young Canadian couples are having fewer children than parents in previous generations did, and the number of immigrants we're brining in aren't even making up for that difference.

You actually used a chart from 2012 and immigration levels under Harper to make a statement about 2023 and immigration levels under Trudeau?

We gained 1 million people in 2022 alone

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/subject...7%20(%2B3.3%25).

Canada's population is currently growing at a record-setting pace. In 2022, the number of Canadians rose by 1,050,110. This marks the first time in Canadian history that our population grew by over 1 million people in a single year, and the highest annual population growth rate (+2.7%) on record since 1957 (+3.3%).

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/how-popu...nder%20control.

A recent analysis by BMO found that for every one per cent of population growth, housing prices typically increase by three per cent. The finding has implications both for housing affordability, and the Bank of Canada's efforts to get inflation under control.

But don't let current stats and major bank financial analysis of population growth impact get in the way of a good soapbox political narrative.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You actually used a chart from 2012 and immigration levels under Harper to make a statement about 2023 and immigration levels under Trudeau?

We gained 1 million people in 2022 alone


But don't let current stats and major bank financial analysis of population growth impact get in the way of a good soapbox political narrative.

Agreed. I posted the same statscan link last night... Why do I feel like Yoho liking my post may have got it dismissed by some posters?

But yeah, it takes some real creative stat cherry-picking to pretzel-up that narrative... You know you're on the right track when two people feel your post warrants a ...