Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GGG

That is still a win. The housing got built so the program accomplished its goal.

Only if it increases housing starts. If all the program accomplishes is going from say, 200K owned units and 50K rental units (250K total) built in a year to 150K owned units and 100K rental units (again, 250K total) built, then that's a pretty big waste of what would probably be hundreds of millions of dollars of lost revenue.

[rubecube]

Why do the CPC always have to come up with bills that look like they were named by the same people who write headlines for the Sun? Just blatantly trying to appeal to the most braindead hicks in the country? It's actually not a horrible plan based on first glance. It's somewhat similar to what the BC NDP are doing, but the way he approaches everything is just so nauseating.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poi...plan-1.6966907

While the "Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act" isn't likely to become law, it signals what the Conservative leader wants to do on this file.

Poilievre's proposed housing plan

Tie federal funding to municipalities to the number of housing starts
Offer "big bonuses" to municipalities that surpass a target of 15 per cent more homes built every year. Claw back money from municipalities that fall short of that target.
Implement a "NIMBY" fine on municipalities that block construction because of "egregious" opposition from local residents.
Demand that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) accelerate approval of financing for projects and threaten to withhold bonuses from CMHC staff if they fail to do so.
Eliminate the GST on affordable apartment housing to spur development.
Sell off 15 per cent of federally owned buildings so the land can be used to build affordable homes.

[redforever]

Does the removal of the GST go to the builder or the homeowner?

If it is the builder, I don't see how this will make much of a difference. The builder fills in his GST forms and gets most of that back. The GST is actually paid at the end by the person who buys the home.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by aaronck

Now do every conservative government since the beginning of time...Federal and Provincial if you have time

You are more than welcome to do so, it's your spin and whataboutism after all. If you think bringing up provincial governments (conservative only of course no partisanship here) in a federal thread strengthens the spin and makes a point feel free.

[PepsiFree]

Kind of lame that you spent all that time finding a spinning wheel, and it doesn't even spin.

C for creativity.
D- for execution.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by redforever

Does the removal of the GST go to the builder or the homeowner?

If it is the builder, I don't see how this will make much of a difference. The builder fills in his GST forms and gets most of that back. The GST is actually paid at the end by the person who buys the home.

The term homeowner is incorrect as these are for rental buildings only. This announcement only applies to rental apartments.

So this doesn't address housing affordability directly, but it incentivizes the construction of rental buildings as the builder automatically pays 5% less.

It's a good policy albeit a policy very limited in scope.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Kind of lame that you spent all that time finding a spinning wheel, and it doesn't even spin.

C for creativity.
D- for execution.

Far too generous.

F for Execution.

Originally Posted by Firebot

So this doesn't address housing affordability directly, but it incentivizes the construction of rental buildings as the builder automatically pays 5% less.

You mean "House affordability" as this directly addresses housing which does include rentals. You get an F for this one too.

[timun]

Originally Posted by rubecube

A rolling 15% increase in housing starts every year, year-after-year, is a super-high target. E.g. Calgary set a new all-time market record here with 17,306 housing starts last year. To meet the 15% target, there would cumulatively have to be 134,186 new houses built from Jan 1 this year through the end of 2027. According to the 2021 federal census the average household in Calgary was 2.6 people, but being conservative and assuming only two people per household, that means enough new housing by EOY 2027 for an additional 268,336 people, or ~19% over the 2022 population (~1.414M).

19% in five years is the kind of growth we haven't seen since the 1970s oil boom.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The term homeowner is incorrect as these are for rental buildings only. This announcement only applies to rental apartments.

So this doesn't address housing affordability directly, but it incentivizes the construction of rental buildings as the builder automatically pays 5% less.

It's a good policy albeit a policy very limited in scope.

Do they pay 5% less though? The GST they pay gets rebated back right now. Seems like a wash to me.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by redforever

Do they pay 5% less though? The GST they pay gets rebated back right now. Seems like a wash to me.

Under which program does it currently get rebated back?
Curious, I could be unaware of something.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by redforever

Do they pay 5% less though? The GST they pay gets rebated back right now. Seems like a wash to me.

Only when they sell it, at which point they collect GST from the buyer and then only remit the difference between what they pay and what they collect. With rentals, the idea is you build it to keep it and generate income with it.

So if an REIT, developer, or investor builds an apartment building, normally they're stuck covering the GST because they're the end customer and you don't collect GST on rent. But now they will get any GST they pay as part of construction rebated back.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Only when they sell it, at which point they collect GST from the buyer and then only remit the difference between what they pay and what they collect. With rentals, the idea is you build it to keep it and generate income with it.

So if an REIT, developer, or investor builds an apartment building, normally they're stuck covering the GST because they're the end customer and you don't collect GST on rent. But now they will get any GST they pay as part of construction rebated back.

ok, thx.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1702693197326024913

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by timun

A rolling 15% increase in housing starts every year, year-after-year, is a super-high target. E.g. Calgary set a new all-time market record here with 17,306 housing starts last year. To meet the 15% target, there would cumulatively have to be 134,186 new houses built from Jan 1 this year through the end of 2027. According to the 2021 federal census the average household in Calgary was 2.6 people, but being conservative and assuming only two people per household, that means enough new housing by EOY 2027 for an additional 268,336 people, or ~19% over the 2022 population (~1.414M).



19% in five years is the kind of growth we haven't seen since the 1970s oil boom.

Oh it's definitely not perfect, but I do think the feds and the provinces need to start putting pressure on the NIMBYs at the municipal level.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Oh it's definitely not perfect, but I do think the feds and the provinces need to start putting pressure on the NIMBYs at the municipal level.

This is an issue across the country. Walking downtown the other day I saw signs "Help Preserve Sydney's Historic District" with a QR code.

I thought "I wonder what's going on to destroy the historic district, I didn't realize we called the North end that. Seems odd as it's a major draw to cruise ship passengers, and the historic buildings are designated heritage buildings". So I looked into it.

The group, which seemed fine with the redevelopment of an old high school and convent into community and art space, is against building a rapid housing initiative next to the foodbank/soup kitchen.

The website says "well all for rapid housing development, but not here".

I mean there's got to be somewhere better than next to social supports of the food bank/soup kitchen, next to public transit and on the edge of downtown with access to pretty much any support services and programs needed.

[Fuzz]

Weird, I've been told the CBC is only permitted to say good things about the Liberals.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Weird, I've been told the CBC is only permitted to say good things about the Liberals.

Yep. You know the liberals are toast when the cbc is mocking them.

[Duruss]

Originally Posted by timun

A rolling 15% increase in housing starts every year, year-after-year, is a super-high target. E.g. Calgary set a new all-time market record here with 17,306 housing starts last year. To meet the 15% target, there would cumulatively have to be 134,186 new houses built from Jan 1 this year through the end of 2027. According to the 2021 federal census the average household in Calgary was 2.6 people, but being conservative and assuming only two people per household, that means enough new housing by EOY 2027 for an additional 268,336 people, or ~19% over the 2022 population (~1.414M).

19% in five years is the kind of growth we haven't seen since the 1970s oil boom.

It's no child left behind for housing, it's a sneaky way to cut federal funding to municipalities.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1702693197326024913

I enjoyed the commentary and criticism but the visuals made it seem like it was made by 9 year olds for 8 year olds.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Why do the CPC always have to come up with bills that look like they were named by the same people who write headlines for the Sun? Just blatantly trying to appeal to the most braindead hicks in the country? It's actually not a horrible plan based on first glance. It's somewhat similar to what the BC NDP are doing, but the way he approaches everything is just so nauseating.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poi...plan-1.6966907

In Cochrane, they have a big infrastructure shortfall. Houses are being built at a rate, and people moving there, at a speed that is not sustainable. In the Conservative system, is there was a slowdown for the infrastructure to catch up, the funding would be cut and the problem would escalate with no way to correct it.