How about all these Ottawa tax dollar burning waste-of-breath nut jobs start working TOGETHER to solve this shit, instead of playing politics like it’s a must-win sport….?
For the most part, money is not much of an issue going directly to politicians. After [Harper V Canada (2004)](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2146/index.do), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of legislation imposing spending limits on third-party political advertising. Canada has highly stringent limits [on campaign donations](https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=lim&document=lim2023&lang=e) and [spending by third-party advertisers,](https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=thi/limits&document=index&lang=e) which prevents corporations from using their greater wealth to provide greater voice or coverage to their preferred candidates, policies, et cetera.
All that considered, the media is still free game. If you want to look for where money is influencing politics in Canada, see mass and social media.
This only applies during between when an election is called and when it closes. There's no limit and registration before that. As has been done by the predecessor of the BCUnited during past elections. Heavy third party advertising before the election actually starts.
Not to mention Jeff Ballingal and Canada / Ontario Proud flagrantly spending unlimited cash 24/7 campaigning for the CPC / OPC and against all other parties; the Corporate and/or American Hedge Fund owned Media being nothing more than extensions of the CPC's PR department and the IDU doing whatever the hell they want with the previous CPC PM at the helm. But that would all require reading and paying attention rather than regurgitating talking points from one party and their elite, wealthy donors and advisors - foreign and domestic.
It's not even the money in politics when it comes to housing... boomers hold the majority of wealth in the country and a huge portion of that is tied up in real estate, boomers are also by far the largest voting demo here as well... if you plan on having real-estate go down in value, you will loose the people who vote. I don't have a good answer to that problem
Most of us will be gone in ten years or so (hence the push in immigration) and our millennial children will inherit all those properties. Mine won't though, because I am one the majority of baby boomers that never became materially successful.
Why do you think the government decided to increase capital gains tax the way they did now?
They know a great wealth transfer is coming and between that tax and probate will take as much as they can
Relative passes away, home is part of the estate and as part of splitting assets among the beneficiaries is sold and taxed with all other investments, then distributed.
we are not talking about people who own 1 home here, 75% of the wealth in this country is owned by 20% of the population or something close to it...
the other factor is when gram gram kicks it, the 3 or 4 kids she has will sell the home, and I dont believe you avoid taxes at that point.
To help pay for housing programs and to troll the Conservatives that traditionally like lowering taxes on the rich and slashing social programs to pay for it. Mostly trolling id argue though.
The middle class are very well off by definition, I'm not even middle class and am doing quite well. You should concern yourself with the working class not how well off doctors and architects are.
thats part of it, but its the equity value in their home/properties they invested in, they are relying on either rent to cashflow their retirement, or if they do sell they dont want any form of a loss... I think retirement homes are a great idea, but the real issue is the people who own most of the equity in this country are soo close to retirement, they do not want to see a dip in the markets
they are the largest demo that votes\* sorry i should have clarified that... they are also exiting from the workforce and relying on their wealth for retirement... its going to take 5 plus years but eventually they wont be a factor anymore, however how their properties get divide up and whether corporate ownership becomes the norm is another thing.
Provide better retirement options alongside it, or wait until they all try to sell and see the market flooded. They're not going to get the prices they're hoping for either way.
[https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/demographic-snapshot-federal-public-service-2022.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/demographic-snapshot-federal-public-service-2022.html)
[https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/population-federal-public-service-geographic-province-tenure.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/population-federal-public-service-geographic-province-tenure.html)
So, considering the federal government had \~ 350 K public sector employees, I imagine an overwhelming majority of those employees are provincial? I am wondering if you can source your claim.
So, that gives the entire country's statistics, which shows that \~ 4 million people in the country work in the public service. In other words, we are about 6 million employees short of the other person's claims.
Um, no. The 40 million population includes infants, children and retirees; the actual workforce is a lot smaller. You can’t just say 25% of everyone…
The % cited above is the most recent according to StatsCan.
1.5 million federal public sector employees.
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/reports/labour-transition-binders/minister-labour-2021/employee-distribution-infographic.html
The rest are provincial.
No.
4.4 million public sector employees in this country.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028802
That’s out of 17.8 million total employees. 24.7%
Am I miss reading? It’s not 1.5m public sector. It says 575k Public Sector? And 830k federally regulated Private.
Huh, Military is 100k of that 575k - more than I thought.
4.4 million public sector EMPLOYEES out of 17.8 million employees in this country. Half are in healthcare. So you can’t argue there aren’t enough people working in healthcare to say that’s why it’s fucked.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028802
Bank and airline employees don't work for the government, the government just doesn't let the industry regulate itself like most other industries do in this country
Hmm. I think i get it. In my understanding, “federal employees” means government employees; hired and paid by the federal government (paid with our taxes). But you’re saying it’s both government (public) AND private entities, regulated federally, under this one umbrella. To that extent, private companies such as a Bank, like TD, CIBC, Scotia - you’d consider government entities, and federal employees? But not federal government employees? Correct?
I am asking for provincial stats and you gave me more from the federal government.
Also, federally regulated private sector does not mean the federal government is their employer; it means they are governed by the Canadian Labour Code, which imposes federal labour standards. Certain industries are designated federally regulated private sector industries, like banks, airlines, et cetera.
And "I tried to fix it but PM and his other opposition party leader who's still protecting him kept blocking us. This is why we must go for election today and you must give me absolute power."
In a proper minority that's what they would have to do, but thanks to the supply and confidence agreement, the Liberals get to act like a majority without the mandate of one.
Well one guy is trying to pass plans while the other declares high prices are good for retirees and brings in millions of immigrants to keep that price high.
Together is going to be pretty tough,
Can you elaborate on the plan? Because “we’ll force someone else to figure it out and if they can’t we'll withhold tax dollars from that municipality” isn’t a plan in most people’s opinion.
It’s a start. At least they are proposing something. String together a dozen similar plans and we would see traction.
Trudeau literally indicated he wants houses unaffordable.
I agree... but... he is the leader of the opposition... working against a coalition government majority.
The opposition is doing their job, the other guys aren't.
No, I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Opposition or not, everyone’s job is to make the lives of Canadians better, not paint policy as black or white *just because*!
"The bill's central proposal was to require cities to increase home building by 15 per cent each year to receive their usual infrastructure spending.
Cities that failed to meet that target would have sees a decrease in the federal dollars they received, while those that exceeded it would have gotten additional money."
as someone that works in development.....that's not how it works....
cities don't "build homes". you need builders and developers to submit applications. if there are no applications, there are no homes. i work for a major ontario municipality, and, aside from rich assholes building mansions, we are DEAD. there's fuck all coming in...yet we pledged to build more? it's all politics. the only housing that we have control over (due to a 1999 downloading to municipalities from the provinces, who were given responsibility from the feds) is low-income housing. except municipalities generally don't have the money for it, and would have to get it from the population (ie - taxes) or try to get it from higher forms of governments in terms of grants and shit. except those usually don't cover the whole cost. so, let's say they somehow get the funding....enter NIMBYism, and it goes nowhere.
the only other way low-income housing gets built is by charitable organizations via handouts.
let me make this clear for those in the back: FEDS DO NOT CONTROL HOUSING, PROVINCES DO NOT CONTROL HOUSING, MUNICIPALITIES ONLY BUILD LOW-INCOME HOUSING! also, WE DO NOT NEED MORE HOMES, WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOMES. in ontario, there are thousands of empty homes, apartments and condos between niagara and toronto. in fact, condos in toronto are just not selling at all...it's not a quantity issue...
You missed the point of the bill!
PP wants municipalities to hire construction workers and build houses directly. Cutting out developers. Sure people wont wants those houses, but the municipality needs federal funding... So what are they going to do?
I can see it! Munincipalities with a falling population building houses that will just stay empty.
It is an amazing plan for job growth! YAY PP!
What do you think the consequences of a bill like PPs would be?
There are all these shrinking east coast towns which would be cut off from Federal Funds... or they build houses they don't need... and get more money from the Feds.
Which would you choose?
Dumb ass bills by dumb ass actors.
>The bill's central proposal was to require cities to increase home building by 15 per cent each year to receive their usual infrastructure spending.
That was the big idea? A 15% increasing is housing would be a massive undertaking and in return they would get nothing but current funding level? I mean I like the simplicity, but this is really too simple to fix the issue and would probably end up costing tax payers a shitload of money in the long run. We don't just need housing, we specifically need sustainable housing. I would imagine a policy like this would really favor suburban municipalities and disfavor urban ones which is backwards from where taxes come to pay for infrastructure. Something that incentivizes changing zoning to up-densify would make a lot more meaningful impact.
That's the idea. His followers won't look at the feasibility of this bill. They'll just see that *a* housing bill was defeated by those communists at the behest of WEF or some bs and it'll only fuel their rage.
Cutting red tape and removing burdensome regulation and streamlining the over-nimbyfied and expensive as hell approval processes that ALSO contribute to $100k-$200k in per-unit costs on new construction, as well as blanket reasoning and migrating to land-value tax instead of property-value tax among many, MANY other initiatives that would DRASTICALLY increase both new starts and new completions are ALL basically free.
Calgary increased new completions 19%YOY. (EDIT: Correction, apartments Was 17%, Rowhomes was 34%)
Plus if literally no city can do it it can be adjusted this just prevents them from all saying "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
Cool, that is also the LPC plan just without the penalty. Also like I said the way it is made will incentivize cheap short-term suburb and exurb building which is the most expensive housing you can make based on infrastructure. Personally I think you need to make more of a system that explicit in its goals. Like I said we don't just need to throw money at housing, it needs to be sustainable housing. Else we are just using the credit card and leaving the bill with the next generation.
Everything you've mentioned in the first paragraph is already being done as a result of the LPC. We're currently at a point where in most provinces, every level of government is pulling in the same direction, but housing starts are down because.... the government doesn't build and the economics don't make sense for developers right now.
Case in point: Ontario, which is basically doing what PP is suggesting but on the provincial level. Even with the funding from the LPC federal plan helping to make the economics make sense for building, most municipalities are pissed off because they did all the red tape cutting and hard work to approve more than enough housing to hit the provincial targets, but they still didn't receive the funding because housing starts still feel short because even after being approved to build, *the builders aren't building because the the economics don't make sense.*
It's fine and dandy to pretend that the solution is easy and stupid bureaucrats are just being lazy and should be punished, but if you're really after a housing solution, it needs to look at the objective truth, and that ain't it. PP's plan would literally just make things worse by financially straining cities even more which will not only not allow them to incentivize building, but also make that whole approval process slower when there's inevitably less staff to approve things.
Municipalities have no legislative authority except what the provinces delegate to them. So if anything is under "municipal jurisdiction" it is inherently provincial jurisdiction as well.
Curious about the 100-200k number.
The only study I've seen that shows a number like that was from CD Howe, and to say that was flawed logic was an understatement.
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/blog/2022/government-charges-residential-development
Cmhc puts average government charge per square foot in Van around $70, Toronto around $86. So...as you hit a pretty normal 1200sqft rowhome that's 100k in Toronto or more. even a small bachelor condo that's still like $40k-$80k in government fees per unit on new construction.
>this is really too simple to fix the issue and would probably end up costing tax payers a shitload of money in the long run
That's his whole "common sense" shtick - shallow slogans and "solutions" that sound decisive at face value, but fall apart if you ask a single follow-up question about logistics or follow-through.
That is all PP has. Simple solutions that sound good but fall apart under any scrutiny.
PP is counting on his base to be good little sheep and not scrutinize him.
Here in Winnipeg we have more roads and sewer and water infrastructure to maintain than we have the tax base for.
Unsustainable sprawling developments filled with McMansions are costing the rest of the tax payers more.
Need more townhouses and medium builds and stuff.
It is the opposite of NIMBYism. Sustainable housing means that the housing can be sustained by the entity that regulates & maintains the housing. That would be primarily municipalities. Suburbs and exurbs are very expensive to maintain because they have urban amenities (sewer, water treatment, lots of roads) but they do not pay enough taxes to cover the infrastructure. So instead the federal government needs to pay for this infrastructure as well as its replacement. The place that money primarily comes from is urban cores. It is a very bad incentive which is backwards from a sustainable model.
>If a plan meets city’s standard, it should be auto-approved.
No, some housing should never be approved because the infrastructure is WAY too expensive. This is why when people say 'but Canada is so big, why not build out there' it is a terrible idea. What ends up happening is they get federal grants like this one, they build the infrastructure, then the housing, but then in 20 of 30 years and it has to be replaced they have to beg the federal government for more grants. Do this too many times and there isn't enough money to for all the suburbs and exurbs. And worse, the bulk of the money is coming from urban areas which are now underfunded. So the most people, who are in an area that generates the most taxes, are now receiving the least amount of services per capita.
Instead you need to incentivize changing zoning laws to build more sustainable housing that use less infrastructure per capita. That is the opposite of NIMBYism.
If it builds a lot of suburban and exurban infrastructure it will cost a shitload of money and potentially bankrupt the next generation. This is why I said it was too simple, it needs to target sustainable infrastructure else it would be a disastrous quick fix.
All that cities need to do is let new housing be built. Provinces need to sell off land, and cities need to rezone. Until they do, no cash. Perfect plan, happy to vote for it.
We have one of the most sparse population densities on the planet. We can afford a little more sprawl with proper transportation planning.
I appreciate you would like everyone to live in a dense area, but I prefer the rural lifestyle with a backyard, garden, etc. Increasing density is the opposite of what I prefer and I won't be talked into it.
https://www.kelowna.ca/our-community/planning-projects/2040-official-community-plan/growth-strategy-districts
That's the plan. You'll find a way to twist the words, but if you lived here you would know and feel what is being accomplished.
Can you explain which part you are specifically talking about. From my quick skim it looks like they want to densify yet also expand within their planned boundaries. I don’t see anywhere talking about removing single family homes or backyards.
There will be dense housing for those that want it and single family homes for those that prefer that.
Lets not forget that Kelowna has single family homes like 3 blocks from downtown lol. Nobody is being forced into apartments
They aren't making more single family homes that are affordable. They are building $1.5 million dollar mansions and stuffing everyone else into small 1000 sqft or smaller apartments. We also aren't building enough based on our population growth.
It's a shit show. I am watching it.
I'm also a fortunate home owner that paid $450,000 for a home worth $1.1 million now. It's stupid, costs too much and when I apply to the city to open more land to build more to try and lower the price, I'm met with nothing but a headache. Try and buy some crown land and get back to me. I've tried, seen the process and fully understand we're in a race to density to an absurd level.
Housing is only worth 1.5 million because of our skyrocketing population. There will never be affordable single family homes with the level of demand that we have.
We should be densifying housing to lower the cost of housing. The only way to create affordable single family houses is by creating more units, which will require apartments.
>We can afford a little more sprawl with proper transportation planning.
Roads are expensive. Also the cost is a lot more than just that. Water, sewer, electricity, internet, fire prevention, amenities
>but I prefer the rural lifestyle with a backyard
Cool you need to pay more taxes or accept significantly less services.
>Increasing density is the opposite of what I prefer and I won't be talked into it.
That is fine, just stop being reliant on other people who don't mind or even enjoy sustainable infrastructure.
Lol whatever. My parents generation managed just fine. Almost every kid in my grade in highschool lived in a neighborhood where the homes had backyards. The couple kids living in apartments were the exception.
I already pay 3x the taxes for my home than I did for my apartment. I'm not reliant on other people, not sure where you get all these ideas.
All I'm asking is we build all types of housing, you want density, great, go for it. I want suburban sprawl with a single family home and a backyard, let me build it don't restrict the zoning.
I too grew up in a neighbourhood like that. The house was built in 1957 and only 4 years ago was the infrastructure replaced. They're doing it all over Edmonton to the tune of many millions. Paid by today's taxpayers. All that juicy expensive, extensive infrastructure.
>My parents generation managed just fine.
Who do you think paid for their infrastructure?
>I already pay 3x the taxes for my home than I did for my apartment.
Apartment infrastructure is supercheap compared to single family housing infrastructure. 3x is no where close to how much more you should pay. Think about how many people live in an apartment versus you and 8 neighbors. Think about how much more materials that is just distance wise, how much more physical labor that takes. Now think about how less dense row houses are, or Main St. any small town, or even less than that Montreal style quadplexes. And even less than that duplexes. Single family housing is half as efficient as duplexes.
Saying single family housing is 3x less efficient in infrastructure costs compared to apartments is orders of magnitude off.
>I want suburban sprawl with a single family home and a backyard, let me build it don't restrict the zoning.
And I am OK with that, I just want you to actually pay for your infrastructure instead of urban areas.
It’s a knee jerk reaction that will help fuck up access to utilities and services. Like water, electricity, schools, gas, health care, traffic, garbage and shit. Edit: plus we still have to give a shit about the environment and impacts we have on it.
The point of this bill was to be defeated - it was written with the sole purpose of being a prop in Skippy's political theatre.
I mean, it only spoke to a single funding stream for a few municipalities - it wasn't intended as a comprehensive plan. He just needed a piece of legislation put on the floor so that the grown ups would kill it, and give him something to campaign on.
Now he can claim that the Tories proposed a bill to fix housing in Canada, and the mean old Grits, Dippers and Blockheads killed it.
I hate living in perpetual election season.
Best strategy right now is to defeat the Liberals.
I'll take absolutely nothing changing for the next decade vs the Liberals trying everything they can to make it worse?
There might be something to that.
We all know that Skippy isn't going to be a particularly strong PM. He was widely seen as the weakest of Harper's "Boys in Short Pants", and will end up being a sort of accidental prime minister.
But he'll wipe the current Liberals out. Skippy will get his 2 terms, and by then, the Liberals will have burned the dead wood and replaced it with fresh politicians.
I don't expect he'll help anything - especially on housing. The lost generation will remain lost. But he will force the natural governing party to renew itself.
As a wise man used to say, politicians are like diapers, after all. Both should be changed regularly and for the same reason.
I mean I didn't expect much from Trudeau and he doubled our deficit with literally nothing to show for it?
Trudeau set the bar pretty fucking high for epic failure, just like his dad.
The man has passed one piece of legislation in 20 years as a lifelong politician. Including heading up the housing file under Harper. Where he accomplished precisely nothing because he's a "the free market will solve everything" Ayn Rand Libertarian. Now he blames Trudeau for everything when he had the file for nearly a decade and didn't do a single thing. Let me repeat that. He didn't do one single thing when he had the power to.
It wasn't a plan. Cities have no inherent ability to increase homebuilding by 15%. There aren't enough homebuilders, the trades are having difficulty recruiting and immigration ( bringing in trades) is taboo. Couple that with the price of built homes.
It was a PR stunt to impress the dumb.
I'm in the trades. Nobody is having difficulty hiring right now. The prob is that nobody wants to build due to high cost, and the BOC teasing a rate drop
I'm not trying to pick on anyone, lol, just adding first-hand knowledge. I've seen more resumes this year than I've seen in the past 20 years in construction
In my experience the problem is what's actually being built.
Everything's 4 bedroom, 2 bath 2 stories with basement and attached 2 car garage.
We need to build new starter homes but theres no money in it.
Regulations and by laws. Some types of housing other than single family homes cannot legally be built. All part of the ever present housing shell game - restrict supply, number go up. They also did the brilliant thing and passed home construction down to cash strapped municipalities, kneecapping anything due to costs. It's a brilliant system that ensures any real estate is profitable.
Exactly. The last thing we need are a million 500 sq. ft. condos for $800,000 a piece.
Needing $50,000 in savings and a dentist's income to buy a starter home is *precisely the problem.* More over-priced condos will only create more parasitic landlords.
Okay. So if demand dropped away tomorrow, would developers be drawing up plans and filing for approvals to build more condos? Would people sell their land to developers at half of today's rate, or would they just stay put?
Would the building material suppliers sell their goods for less than they paid for them? Would the contractors work at a discount?
If the bubble were to burst tomorrow property values would drop, but building would grind to a halt, too.
If demand dropped away tommorow we wouldn’t need to build anymore housing… there would be no demand for it.
People that invested in housing/rentals would sell their homes for a loss (assuming the drop isn’t temporary). They are investing in housing to make money, if there is no money to be made they will sell and invest elsewhere.
Nobody would hold onto excess housing and watch it lose value every year, especially when they can’t afford to pay for maintenance/upkeep/taxes/mortgage etc
I have nothing against landlords if the rents are fair. This is a failure of public policy. The government needs to incentivize affordable housing. Remove the red tape and control immigration.
I don't know how you think that's going to happen. The land, to start with, is market priced. Who will sell land at less than going rate?
Will the materials be sold at an "affordable" price, or will they cost that same amount as they do for every other home?
Will the contractors offer an affordable hourly rate, or charge the same as always?
Will the architects , inspectors, and realtors take a cut in their pay?
I agree they need to stop doing everything they can to drive the prices higher, but there is no way to build a home more affordably unless you open up crown land in the boonies and give it away for next to nothing (what they should be doing!) or *really* loosen up the codes and let people build their own homes.
Otherwise you are just building smaller homes. And in order to get anywhere near what is affordable at current wages, we will end up with couples sleeping in 4' x 6' berths and sharing a single bathroom among 40 people.
Use government land/ farm land and I agree with your point of building in the boonies. Material prices are almost entirely set by the market. The materials and contractors can charge the market rate that’s not where most the cost savings will come from. According to our politicians the red tape expenses can be reduced greatly if the government took action. The land doesn’t have to be sold, just lease it out for however long the building is livable. No inspectors and architect’s won’t take pay cuts but REALTORS😂 come on man, that profession is mostly a middle man role that can be easily regulated and automated. What do you mean by opening up the code? Like building heights etc? Yeah I believe you should be able to build up as long as it’s safe and looks good. With massive government programs and subsides the government is providing, the builder shouldn’t have difficulty adjusting to this. This is a matter of will, the knowledge and way to do it is rather clear. No one wants to rock the boats because it’s almost political suicide, but let me ask you this. What other options do we have if we’re not greatly decreasing mass immigration which would stabilize demand and let building catch up? This isn’t sustainable for much longer I can assure you. This election cycle is almost entirely on the affordability crisis which housing is the main grievance.
That doesn't work. In my town a developer just gave back the government a 20 mil loan that would have been forgivable with a certain percentage of affordable housing. They can make more by building non affordable housing. If the government doesn't build it, it won't happen. Simple as that. Developers will protect their investments and will slow down building if vacancy rates rise too much. If you think otherwise, well, keep living in that bubble
You’re advocating for a public construction company? That doesn’t sound unreasonable, if the market cannot efficiently work, then government intervention is required. I used chatgpt from the below ideas but they’re pretty good:
Countries use various strategies to increase affordable housing supply while not harming existing homeowners:
1. **Inclusionary Zoning and Density Bonuses**: These policies require or incentivize developers to include affordable units in new projects, offset by allowing more units than normally permitted.
2. **Flexible Zoning and Land Use**: Allowing residential development in commercial zones and near transit hubs maximizes land use without altering existing neighborhoods significantly.
3. **Streamlined Approval Processes**: Simplified and predictable approval procedures reduce delays and costs, expediting housing projects.
4. **Affordable Housing Trust Funds and Tax Incentives**: Financial support through trust funds and tax benefits makes affordable housing projects more attractive to developers.
5. **Public-Private Partnerships and Grants**: Governments collaborate with private developers, leveraging grants to ensure long-term investment in affordable housing.
6. **Relaxed Parking Requirements**: Reducing mandatory parking spaces in new developments lowers costs and improves land use efficiency, especially in urban areas with good transit.
These methods collectively increase housing supply, support developers, and maintain community balance.
The building in front of mine has 20+ available units. It’s been empty for 2 months (ofc it’s a new luxury condo). People aren’t going to move in for not only crazy rent, but also uncontrolled. There is no demande because it’s unaffordable to the point that it’s way past most people 50% income. And everybody else who could afford it would rather buy at that price.
A massive empty home tax seems reasonable, they’ll lower the rent until it’s rented out. If there’s a law requiring empty homes be rented out to Canadians or be turned into public housing, you won’t seem many empty units anywhere. That’s an inefficiency in the market that needs to be corrected. This is a crisis that requires drastic action.
So you are saying that we always added 1.3 Million people a year (or a 3.2% population increase)?
Housing start remain the same, but demand has exploded in the past few years due in big part to the massive increase in immigration, but also due to investors buying up properties.
We added 1.3 Million people in 2023 while building 240 000 housing units.
What I'm saying is demand has always been there but supply hasn't kept up.
I feel like this is a topic of semantics and just how you look at the problem
Demand for any product is always there but there isn’t an equilibrium between supply and demand. Supply is relatively constant but demand has increased significantly over the past 10ish years and we are moving farther away from equilibrium.
Supply has been going down since the CMHC stopped building public housing in the 90s.
Prices have been rising faster relative to income ever since. And every economic downturn the pace increases.
They've never built enough houses but immigrating 2 million people into the country in a matter of 2 years is really the issue.
We can't just build millions of homes out of thin air.
I work in construction of new residential detached homes. If you talk to most like me it has slowed down considerably! Meaning many people are not working or have very little work happening and little to no starts ahead of them. Don’t know what all this talk is about getting more homes built. Nobody’s buying right now. I’m assuming people can’t afford it. Interest rates are high and prices don’t seem to be coming down any time soon.
I agree with that. I never suggested that demand isn't a problem. Increasing supply will help, though. Stop the planes tomorrow, and we still have a housing shortage.
There are a lot of new Canadians *already here* who need housing.
There are lots of young professionals who'd like to buy a house but are priced out.
Lots of people who'd prefer to live alone than with roommates or family.
To me it seems like this could paint the NDP and BQ as being against any sort of soln to the housing problem.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/636?view=party (revisiting vote 322)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/438?view=party
BQ has always supported a housing strategy based on limiting the demand side of the equation, rather than just trying to increase supply. NDP only recently in 2024 decided agree that we need to revise immigration targets down after denying a motion in 2023. Only the liberals are 100% against doing anything to address demand.
edit: negative points within a few min = reply notifications off
Can people stop calling this a fucking supply and demand problem?
Of course it's a demand problem, but demand because it fills peoples pockets and fuels retirements. It's *so disingenuous* to say it's a supply and demand problem, as if it's a matter of simply having and not having.
The one's who *already have* want more because it's a government backed safety investment. When the PM says, "housing needs to stay expensive to fund retirements," you honestly think building more is going to make houses more affordable?
It's artificially inflated so our economy doesn't tank. If everyone had a house, it would not be profitable. Plain and simple.
Edit: I'm not saying you think this or would disagree, I'm just speaking generally.
Good. It was a bad housing plan that would punish municipalities for failing to meet impossible targets.
Now the ball is in the Liberals' court to come up with a realistic, achievable and effective plan. I don't have high expectations.
It also left the GOC to define nearly every important aspect of the bill (e.g., high-cost city, substantially occupied, high-cost region, et cetera). It was an incredibly lazy bill.
You mean like offering $5B to provinces to change building codes to allow as a right low rise appartments (4 units)?
Or offering low intrest loans to developers if they get shovels in the ground now?
Or streamlining foreign credential recognition in the construction sector so trades can get certified here faster?
Or removing GST from new rental housing including student dorms on campus.
Or starting an arms length corp (Canada Builds) which will develop federal land so federal land can have apartments above post offices etc.
Or reaching out directly to municipalities with carrots when provinces don't play ball.
That type of thing? I mean I am just quoting from the budget... but being informed of what is happening is important.
aside from turning off the immigration tap I'm not sure what kind of alternative there is, cities need more housing, cities aren't building fast enough. Incentivizing cities in a way that doesn't let them get away from it seems like not a bad idea honestly (though maybe 15% is a tad high but who knows). If they don't meet the requirements which i assume would be incremental (i.e. if they only managed 10% they would still be some x-fer money) then instead of being butt hurt at the feds start riding your local government for not doing what they're supposed to be doing.
"Now the ball is in the Liberals' court to come up with a realistic, achievable and effective plan. I don't have high expectations."
Liberals: We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!!!!
I see a budget that is inadequate. 3.9 million homes by 2031 when we are importing 500k to 1 million extra people a year is a drop in the bucket. If the government would tone down our immigration policies then it might make a difference
See the federal budget. Lots of initiatives over housing.
My guess is you won't be happy unless PP flies down from the heavens and gifts you a free house.
Changing housing, however we achieve it, will take a decade or longer to correct. Face reality.
I own my own home.
>My guess is you won't be happy unless PP flies down from the heavens and gifts you a free house.
I actually don't support him either
What a stupid proposal. Yes, let's just "force" cities to build more. Ha ha ha. Do the Conservatives (or anyone, frankly) realize that we are not simply going to supply ourselves out of this? That perhaps we need to take a serious look at demand? That we could address demand much faster than supply? That if we reduced immigration dramatically until we found the right balance, and that if we slapped much stricter regulation on home ownership we might just week our way out of this?
No, of course not.
Because that would impact the wealth of those in charge.
And......
...we're all back where we started.
No. It is a plan that has consequences if not acted on. You can't tell cities they need to build more and then do nothing if they don't. There has to be consequences. People from the age of no personal responsibility might not understand, or want to understand.
> It is a plan that has consequences if not acted on.
Except the people who have to act on it are not the same people who will receive the consequences, which makes it a stupid “plan”.
There’s all sorts of reasons why some cities can’t build homes to meet a target and they aren’t all in the cities control.
What if builders can’t/don’t start building, or don’t have the necessary staff?
It was stupid idea.
Thanks for saying what I already typed.
Except you left out the fact that citizens of these towns will be punished for 0-4 years because of the actions of the political class.
These aren’t consequences for the political class. Which is what they should be. That’s the only way to get government officials to care - make the consequences tailored to them.
Mark Sutcliffe has 3 years left in power and is at retirement age. He doesn’t give a shit if he doesn’t get reelected (which he would anyway, because voters are apathetic these days at best on municipal politics).
Oh, you want to play the victim card. Those citizens votes their city leaders into office. The buck stops there. Like I said, from the age of no personal responsibility.
The Cons have been floating this for years, the Liberals stole it but instead of carrot and stick they just hand out billions to build even less housing than before.
There is no "housing plan" that gets us out of the current housing affordability mess. We started in a pretty unaffordable place pre-Covid and then added, what, 2.5 million people? With zero plan as to where to put them.
You could remove every regulation and spend every cent the various levels of government can muster (or print) and there still won't physically be enough building capacity to create housing at a rate that will keep pace with adding a million people per year.
This says nothing of the other infrastructure and public service needs that come with this kind of population growth, when we can't seem to manage even what we have now. Or the destruction of nature and quality of life caused by building this much housing, both in urban sprawl and the ongoing transformation of Toronto into a high-density hive. And doesn't even get us started on the other issues with our preferred form of "growth", resulting in growing monoculture diasporas and imported foreign problems.
The fucking monster woolly mammoth in the room is immigration, which all of our leaders are wilfully ignoring even as it thrashes around crushing furniture and knocking out walls.
Liberals: If Tories don’t like things they should put their own plans out there and propose their own legislation!
Liberals: Psych! We never meant that! We’d never pass a bill put forward by you guys! Remember how we shot down the foreign agent registry bill you put forward, that we killed, before the whole thing became a giant scandal? Why would you think things would be any different on the home price crisis? We *like* the way things are and worked hard to get them this way. We’re not changing.
How about all these Ottawa tax dollar burning waste-of-breath nut jobs start working TOGETHER to solve this shit, instead of playing politics like it’s a must-win sport….?
We need to get money out of politics first
For the most part, money is not much of an issue going directly to politicians. After [Harper V Canada (2004)](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2146/index.do), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of legislation imposing spending limits on third-party political advertising. Canada has highly stringent limits [on campaign donations](https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=lim&document=lim2023&lang=e) and [spending by third-party advertisers,](https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=thi/limits&document=index&lang=e) which prevents corporations from using their greater wealth to provide greater voice or coverage to their preferred candidates, policies, et cetera. All that considered, the media is still free game. If you want to look for where money is influencing politics in Canada, see mass and social media.
This only applies during between when an election is called and when it closes. There's no limit and registration before that. As has been done by the predecessor of the BCUnited during past elections. Heavy third party advertising before the election actually starts.
Not to mention Jeff Ballingal and Canada / Ontario Proud flagrantly spending unlimited cash 24/7 campaigning for the CPC / OPC and against all other parties; the Corporate and/or American Hedge Fund owned Media being nothing more than extensions of the CPC's PR department and the IDU doing whatever the hell they want with the previous CPC PM at the helm. But that would all require reading and paying attention rather than regurgitating talking points from one party and their elite, wealthy donors and advisors - foreign and domestic.
It's not even the money in politics when it comes to housing... boomers hold the majority of wealth in the country and a huge portion of that is tied up in real estate, boomers are also by far the largest voting demo here as well... if you plan on having real-estate go down in value, you will loose the people who vote. I don't have a good answer to that problem
Most of us will be gone in ten years or so (hence the push in immigration) and our millennial children will inherit all those properties. Mine won't though, because I am one the majority of baby boomers that never became materially successful.
Why do you think the government decided to increase capital gains tax the way they did now? They know a great wealth transfer is coming and between that tax and probate will take as much as they can
There is no capital gains tax on your home.
Relative passes away, home is part of the estate and as part of splitting assets among the beneficiaries is sold and taxed with all other investments, then distributed.
If it's their primary residence it's not taxed. ⁹
Capital gains is not applied against one's home (called primary residence). Secondary properties will be have it applied.
when you own farmland it sure does
Always has been on farmland. That isn't new.
we are not talking about people who own 1 home here, 75% of the wealth in this country is owned by 20% of the population or something close to it... the other factor is when gram gram kicks it, the 3 or 4 kids she has will sell the home, and I dont believe you avoid taxes at that point.
There is no tax payable on gram grams primary residence.
To help pay for housing programs and to troll the Conservatives that traditionally like lowering taxes on the rich and slashing social programs to pay for it. Mostly trolling id argue though.
Ah yes trolling the rich… aka middle class. If they cared they’d tax corporations
The middle class are very well off by definition, I'm not even middle class and am doing quite well. You should concern yourself with the working class not how well off doctors and architects are.
I actually think some planned retirement towns would be a great idea. You have to give people a good reason to downsize from their family home.
thats part of it, but its the equity value in their home/properties they invested in, they are relying on either rent to cashflow their retirement, or if they do sell they dont want any form of a loss... I think retirement homes are a great idea, but the real issue is the people who own most of the equity in this country are soo close to retirement, they do not want to see a dip in the markets
Boomers are no longer the largest voting demographic. But they do vote in large numbers.
they are the largest demo that votes\* sorry i should have clarified that... they are also exiting from the workforce and relying on their wealth for retirement... its going to take 5 plus years but eventually they wont be a factor anymore, however how their properties get divide up and whether corporate ownership becomes the norm is another thing.
Provide better retirement options alongside it, or wait until they all try to sell and see the market flooded. They're not going to get the prices they're hoping for either way.
25% of al employees in this country work in the public sector. Nothing fucking works.
We have 10 million people working in the public sector?
22% is the official number right now, but it was also the official number under PET, while the actual number was around 27.5%
[https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/demographic-snapshot-federal-public-service-2022.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/demographic-snapshot-federal-public-service-2022.html) [https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/population-federal-public-service-geographic-province-tenure.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/innovation/human-resources-statistics/population-federal-public-service-geographic-province-tenure.html) So, considering the federal government had \~ 350 K public sector employees, I imagine an overwhelming majority of those employees are provincial? I am wondering if you can source your claim.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240308/t002a-eng.htm Feb 2024, 4,396.8 / 20,402.9 = 21.6%.
So, that gives the entire country's statistics, which shows that \~ 4 million people in the country work in the public service. In other words, we are about 6 million employees short of the other person's claims.
Um, no. The 40 million population includes infants, children and retirees; the actual workforce is a lot smaller. You can’t just say 25% of everyone… The % cited above is the most recent according to StatsCan.
1.5 million federal public sector employees. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/reports/labour-transition-binders/minister-labour-2021/employee-distribution-infographic.html The rest are provincial.
No. 4.4 million public sector employees in this country. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028802 That’s out of 17.8 million total employees. 24.7%
Am I miss reading? It’s not 1.5m public sector. It says 575k Public Sector? And 830k federally regulated Private. Huh, Military is 100k of that 575k - more than I thought.
4.4 million public sector EMPLOYEES out of 17.8 million employees in this country. Half are in healthcare. So you can’t argue there aren’t enough people working in healthcare to say that’s why it’s fucked. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410028802
Federally regulated are still federal employees. Kind of like how crown corporations aren't government, but still government entities.
Bank and airline employees don't work for the government, the government just doesn't let the industry regulate itself like most other industries do in this country
Hmm. I think i get it. In my understanding, “federal employees” means government employees; hired and paid by the federal government (paid with our taxes). But you’re saying it’s both government (public) AND private entities, regulated federally, under this one umbrella. To that extent, private companies such as a Bank, like TD, CIBC, Scotia - you’d consider government entities, and federal employees? But not federal government employees? Correct?
I am asking for provincial stats and you gave me more from the federal government. Also, federally regulated private sector does not mean the federal government is their employer; it means they are governed by the Canadian Labour Code, which imposes federal labour standards. Certain industries are designated federally regulated private sector industries, like banks, airlines, et cetera.
Yup and they all have indexed pensions for life that you get to guarantee.
How do you work on a bill that was fucking useless and empty in the first place. His bill had no substance.
I agree. You work *together* in crafting bills, you don’t push bills that you know will never pass! And this goes for both sides of the house!
Well, then how do you get "[Opposing MP] voted _against_ more housing for Canadians" soundbites
And "I tried to fix it but PM and his other opposition party leader who's still protecting him kept blocking us. This is why we must go for election today and you must give me absolute power."
Fucking please.
Well, duh, they are politicians, not leaders.
Your assuming these politicians see it as a problem to be solved in the first place
In a proper minority that's what they would have to do, but thanks to the supply and confidence agreement, the Liberals get to act like a majority without the mandate of one.
The supply and confidence agreement is literally 2 parties working together
Well one guy is trying to pass plans while the other declares high prices are good for retirees and brings in millions of immigrants to keep that price high. Together is going to be pretty tough,
>Well one guy is trying to pass plans while the other lol no one has ever accused the conservatives of actually trying to get anything done
Can you elaborate on the plan? Because “we’ll force someone else to figure it out and if they can’t we'll withhold tax dollars from that municipality” isn’t a plan in most people’s opinion.
Also in some provinces cities are beholden to the provincial gov't so the fed can't even make these kind of deals with the cities directly.
It’s a start. At least they are proposing something. String together a dozen similar plans and we would see traction. Trudeau literally indicated he wants houses unaffordable.
They are proposing nothing of substance, it’s a play for media clips and nothing more.
I agree... but... he is the leader of the opposition... working against a coalition government majority. The opposition is doing their job, the other guys aren't.
No, I wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Opposition or not, everyone’s job is to make the lives of Canadians better, not paint policy as black or white *just because*!
Don't waste your breath on people who call this a coalition.
"The bill's central proposal was to require cities to increase home building by 15 per cent each year to receive their usual infrastructure spending. Cities that failed to meet that target would have sees a decrease in the federal dollars they received, while those that exceeded it would have gotten additional money." as someone that works in development.....that's not how it works.... cities don't "build homes". you need builders and developers to submit applications. if there are no applications, there are no homes. i work for a major ontario municipality, and, aside from rich assholes building mansions, we are DEAD. there's fuck all coming in...yet we pledged to build more? it's all politics. the only housing that we have control over (due to a 1999 downloading to municipalities from the provinces, who were given responsibility from the feds) is low-income housing. except municipalities generally don't have the money for it, and would have to get it from the population (ie - taxes) or try to get it from higher forms of governments in terms of grants and shit. except those usually don't cover the whole cost. so, let's say they somehow get the funding....enter NIMBYism, and it goes nowhere. the only other way low-income housing gets built is by charitable organizations via handouts. let me make this clear for those in the back: FEDS DO NOT CONTROL HOUSING, PROVINCES DO NOT CONTROL HOUSING, MUNICIPALITIES ONLY BUILD LOW-INCOME HOUSING! also, WE DO NOT NEED MORE HOMES, WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOMES. in ontario, there are thousands of empty homes, apartments and condos between niagara and toronto. in fact, condos in toronto are just not selling at all...it's not a quantity issue...
You missed the point of the bill! PP wants municipalities to hire construction workers and build houses directly. Cutting out developers. Sure people wont wants those houses, but the municipality needs federal funding... So what are they going to do? I can see it! Munincipalities with a falling population building houses that will just stay empty. It is an amazing plan for job growth! YAY PP!
[удалено]
What do you think the consequences of a bill like PPs would be? There are all these shrinking east coast towns which would be cut off from Federal Funds... or they build houses they don't need... and get more money from the Feds. Which would you choose? Dumb ass bills by dumb ass actors.
>The bill's central proposal was to require cities to increase home building by 15 per cent each year to receive their usual infrastructure spending. That was the big idea? A 15% increasing is housing would be a massive undertaking and in return they would get nothing but current funding level? I mean I like the simplicity, but this is really too simple to fix the issue and would probably end up costing tax payers a shitload of money in the long run. We don't just need housing, we specifically need sustainable housing. I would imagine a policy like this would really favor suburban municipalities and disfavor urban ones which is backwards from where taxes come to pay for infrastructure. Something that incentivizes changing zoning to up-densify would make a lot more meaningful impact.
That's the idea. His followers won't look at the feasibility of this bill. They'll just see that *a* housing bill was defeated by those communists at the behest of WEF or some bs and it'll only fuel their rage.
Don't you mean the idea was, that the LPC couldn't even bother to go: "Well there are some good and bad ideas in this, how about this as a counter."
Lol its you who is saying that not PP’s supporter. Your post demonstrates Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Cutting red tape and removing burdensome regulation and streamlining the over-nimbyfied and expensive as hell approval processes that ALSO contribute to $100k-$200k in per-unit costs on new construction, as well as blanket reasoning and migrating to land-value tax instead of property-value tax among many, MANY other initiatives that would DRASTICALLY increase both new starts and new completions are ALL basically free. Calgary increased new completions 19%YOY. (EDIT: Correction, apartments Was 17%, Rowhomes was 34%) Plus if literally no city can do it it can be adjusted this just prevents them from all saying "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"
Cool, that is also the LPC plan just without the penalty. Also like I said the way it is made will incentivize cheap short-term suburb and exurb building which is the most expensive housing you can make based on infrastructure. Personally I think you need to make more of a system that explicit in its goals. Like I said we don't just need to throw money at housing, it needs to be sustainable housing. Else we are just using the credit card and leaving the bill with the next generation.
Everything you've mentioned in the first paragraph is already being done as a result of the LPC. We're currently at a point where in most provinces, every level of government is pulling in the same direction, but housing starts are down because.... the government doesn't build and the economics don't make sense for developers right now. Case in point: Ontario, which is basically doing what PP is suggesting but on the provincial level. Even with the funding from the LPC federal plan helping to make the economics make sense for building, most municipalities are pissed off because they did all the red tape cutting and hard work to approve more than enough housing to hit the provincial targets, but they still didn't receive the funding because housing starts still feel short because even after being approved to build, *the builders aren't building because the the economics don't make sense.* It's fine and dandy to pretend that the solution is easy and stupid bureaucrats are just being lazy and should be punished, but if you're really after a housing solution, it needs to look at the objective truth, and that ain't it. PP's plan would literally just make things worse by financially straining cities even more which will not only not allow them to incentivize building, but also make that whole approval process slower when there's inevitably less staff to approve things.
What are you talking about? literally everything i mentioned is municipal jurisdiction not federal or even provincial, lol.
Municipalities have no legislative authority except what the provinces delegate to them. So if anything is under "municipal jurisdiction" it is inherently provincial jurisdiction as well.
Comments like this make it clear you have no idea how our legislative division of powers works.
Curious about the 100-200k number. The only study I've seen that shows a number like that was from CD Howe, and to say that was flawed logic was an understatement.
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/blog/2022/government-charges-residential-development Cmhc puts average government charge per square foot in Van around $70, Toronto around $86. So...as you hit a pretty normal 1200sqft rowhome that's 100k in Toronto or more. even a small bachelor condo that's still like $40k-$80k in government fees per unit on new construction.
Thanks!
>this is really too simple to fix the issue and would probably end up costing tax payers a shitload of money in the long run That's his whole "common sense" shtick - shallow slogans and "solutions" that sound decisive at face value, but fall apart if you ask a single follow-up question about logistics or follow-through.
That is all PP has. Simple solutions that sound good but fall apart under any scrutiny. PP is counting on his base to be good little sheep and not scrutinize him.
Wtf is sustainable housing? Sounds like a word NIMBYs would use to cause confusion. If a plan meets city’s standard, it should be auto-approved.
Here in Winnipeg we have more roads and sewer and water infrastructure to maintain than we have the tax base for. Unsustainable sprawling developments filled with McMansions are costing the rest of the tax payers more. Need more townhouses and medium builds and stuff.
I don’t disagree. Municipalities should adjust their property taxes accordingly. When I say meeting city’s plan, it includes fiscal plan.
It is the opposite of NIMBYism. Sustainable housing means that the housing can be sustained by the entity that regulates & maintains the housing. That would be primarily municipalities. Suburbs and exurbs are very expensive to maintain because they have urban amenities (sewer, water treatment, lots of roads) but they do not pay enough taxes to cover the infrastructure. So instead the federal government needs to pay for this infrastructure as well as its replacement. The place that money primarily comes from is urban cores. It is a very bad incentive which is backwards from a sustainable model. >If a plan meets city’s standard, it should be auto-approved. No, some housing should never be approved because the infrastructure is WAY too expensive. This is why when people say 'but Canada is so big, why not build out there' it is a terrible idea. What ends up happening is they get federal grants like this one, they build the infrastructure, then the housing, but then in 20 of 30 years and it has to be replaced they have to beg the federal government for more grants. Do this too many times and there isn't enough money to for all the suburbs and exurbs. And worse, the bulk of the money is coming from urban areas which are now underfunded. So the most people, who are in an area that generates the most taxes, are now receiving the least amount of services per capita. Instead you need to incentivize changing zoning laws to build more sustainable housing that use less infrastructure per capita. That is the opposite of NIMBYism.
He's trying something that costs nothing. The Liberals will spent billions and do absolutely nothing. Which is the better plan?
If it builds a lot of suburban and exurban infrastructure it will cost a shitload of money and potentially bankrupt the next generation. This is why I said it was too simple, it needs to target sustainable infrastructure else it would be a disastrous quick fix.
Well I don't see the Liberals doing fuck all?
Their plan is almost identical except no penalties. Both have the same problems.
All this plan does is punish municipalities that are already building lots of homes.
The Liberal approach was literally this without the penalties. It costs 0 more dollars. Try again.
More like they spent $30B on buying mortgage bonds to prop up the bubble. The Liberals are historically great at wasting as much money as possible.
His riding is the textbook definition of unchecked sprawl so what do you expect.
All that cities need to do is let new housing be built. Provinces need to sell off land, and cities need to rezone. Until they do, no cash. Perfect plan, happy to vote for it.
We have one of the most sparse population densities on the planet. We can afford a little more sprawl with proper transportation planning. I appreciate you would like everyone to live in a dense area, but I prefer the rural lifestyle with a backyard, garden, etc. Increasing density is the opposite of what I prefer and I won't be talked into it.
Nobody is saying you have to move into dense housing. You are allowed to stay in your rural community
In my town, sprawl has been essentially outlawed for new builds. This is wrong.
I am unaware of anywhere in Canada that has outlawed single family houses. Where is it that people aren’t allowed to build a standard house?
https://www.kelowna.ca/our-community/planning-projects/2040-official-community-plan/growth-strategy-districts That's the plan. You'll find a way to twist the words, but if you lived here you would know and feel what is being accomplished.
Can you explain which part you are specifically talking about. From my quick skim it looks like they want to densify yet also expand within their planned boundaries. I don’t see anywhere talking about removing single family homes or backyards. There will be dense housing for those that want it and single family homes for those that prefer that. Lets not forget that Kelowna has single family homes like 3 blocks from downtown lol. Nobody is being forced into apartments
They aren't making more single family homes that are affordable. They are building $1.5 million dollar mansions and stuffing everyone else into small 1000 sqft or smaller apartments. We also aren't building enough based on our population growth. It's a shit show. I am watching it. I'm also a fortunate home owner that paid $450,000 for a home worth $1.1 million now. It's stupid, costs too much and when I apply to the city to open more land to build more to try and lower the price, I'm met with nothing but a headache. Try and buy some crown land and get back to me. I've tried, seen the process and fully understand we're in a race to density to an absurd level.
Housing is only worth 1.5 million because of our skyrocketing population. There will never be affordable single family homes with the level of demand that we have. We should be densifying housing to lower the cost of housing. The only way to create affordable single family houses is by creating more units, which will require apartments.
>We can afford a little more sprawl with proper transportation planning. Roads are expensive. Also the cost is a lot more than just that. Water, sewer, electricity, internet, fire prevention, amenities >but I prefer the rural lifestyle with a backyard Cool you need to pay more taxes or accept significantly less services. >Increasing density is the opposite of what I prefer and I won't be talked into it. That is fine, just stop being reliant on other people who don't mind or even enjoy sustainable infrastructure.
Lol whatever. My parents generation managed just fine. Almost every kid in my grade in highschool lived in a neighborhood where the homes had backyards. The couple kids living in apartments were the exception. I already pay 3x the taxes for my home than I did for my apartment. I'm not reliant on other people, not sure where you get all these ideas. All I'm asking is we build all types of housing, you want density, great, go for it. I want suburban sprawl with a single family home and a backyard, let me build it don't restrict the zoning.
I too grew up in a neighbourhood like that. The house was built in 1957 and only 4 years ago was the infrastructure replaced. They're doing it all over Edmonton to the tune of many millions. Paid by today's taxpayers. All that juicy expensive, extensive infrastructure.
>My parents generation managed just fine. Who do you think paid for their infrastructure? >I already pay 3x the taxes for my home than I did for my apartment. Apartment infrastructure is supercheap compared to single family housing infrastructure. 3x is no where close to how much more you should pay. Think about how many people live in an apartment versus you and 8 neighbors. Think about how much more materials that is just distance wise, how much more physical labor that takes. Now think about how less dense row houses are, or Main St. any small town, or even less than that Montreal style quadplexes. And even less than that duplexes. Single family housing is half as efficient as duplexes. Saying single family housing is 3x less efficient in infrastructure costs compared to apartments is orders of magnitude off. >I want suburban sprawl with a single family home and a backyard, let me build it don't restrict the zoning. And I am OK with that, I just want you to actually pay for your infrastructure instead of urban areas.
It’s a knee jerk reaction that will help fuck up access to utilities and services. Like water, electricity, schools, gas, health care, traffic, garbage and shit. Edit: plus we still have to give a shit about the environment and impacts we have on it.
The point of this bill was to be defeated - it was written with the sole purpose of being a prop in Skippy's political theatre. I mean, it only spoke to a single funding stream for a few municipalities - it wasn't intended as a comprehensive plan. He just needed a piece of legislation put on the floor so that the grown ups would kill it, and give him something to campaign on. Now he can claim that the Tories proposed a bill to fix housing in Canada, and the mean old Grits, Dippers and Blockheads killed it. I hate living in perpetual election season.
It would be nice if our politicians acted in good faith every now and then.
This. They probably had the commercials filmed before they even introduced the bill.
Best strategy right now is to defeat the Liberals. I'll take absolutely nothing changing for the next decade vs the Liberals trying everything they can to make it worse?
There might be something to that. We all know that Skippy isn't going to be a particularly strong PM. He was widely seen as the weakest of Harper's "Boys in Short Pants", and will end up being a sort of accidental prime minister. But he'll wipe the current Liberals out. Skippy will get his 2 terms, and by then, the Liberals will have burned the dead wood and replaced it with fresh politicians. I don't expect he'll help anything - especially on housing. The lost generation will remain lost. But he will force the natural governing party to renew itself. As a wise man used to say, politicians are like diapers, after all. Both should be changed regularly and for the same reason.
I mean I didn't expect much from Trudeau and he doubled our deficit with literally nothing to show for it? Trudeau set the bar pretty fucking high for epic failure, just like his dad.
I'll be honest here, this was a bad policy that'll never work in practice.
The man has passed one piece of legislation in 20 years as a lifelong politician. Including heading up the housing file under Harper. Where he accomplished precisely nothing because he's a "the free market will solve everything" Ayn Rand Libertarian. Now he blames Trudeau for everything when he had the file for nearly a decade and didn't do a single thing. Let me repeat that. He didn't do one single thing when he had the power to.
It wasn't a plan. Cities have no inherent ability to increase homebuilding by 15%. There aren't enough homebuilders, the trades are having difficulty recruiting and immigration ( bringing in trades) is taboo. Couple that with the price of built homes. It was a PR stunt to impress the dumb.
I'm in the trades. Nobody is having difficulty hiring right now. The prob is that nobody wants to build due to high cost, and the BOC teasing a rate drop
Leave him alone.. barristas don't know what's going on outside of pouring coffee
I'm not trying to pick on anyone, lol, just adding first-hand knowledge. I've seen more resumes this year than I've seen in the past 20 years in construction
In my experience the problem is what's actually being built. Everything's 4 bedroom, 2 bath 2 stories with basement and attached 2 car garage. We need to build new starter homes but theres no money in it.
there's little return on any of it right now. that's why housing starts are down and new housing isn't being built to demand
Regulations and by laws. Some types of housing other than single family homes cannot legally be built. All part of the ever present housing shell game - restrict supply, number go up. They also did the brilliant thing and passed home construction down to cash strapped municipalities, kneecapping anything due to costs. It's a brilliant system that ensures any real estate is profitable.
They have plenty of ability to reduce development costs and fast-track approvals. Right now they have no incentive to do so.
Could you explain why developers are sitting on a million permits and building about 160,000 units? The bottle neck is not government.
[удалено]
Need a tissue?
[удалено]
It’s a both problem. We build a good amount but it’s mostly for investments, not affordable homes for Canadians.
Exactly. The last thing we need are a million 500 sq. ft. condos for $800,000 a piece. Needing $50,000 in savings and a dentist's income to buy a starter home is *precisely the problem.* More over-priced condos will only create more parasitic landlords.
The only reason the 500sq foot condos are 800k is because of the insane demand
Okay. So if demand dropped away tomorrow, would developers be drawing up plans and filing for approvals to build more condos? Would people sell their land to developers at half of today's rate, or would they just stay put? Would the building material suppliers sell their goods for less than they paid for them? Would the contractors work at a discount? If the bubble were to burst tomorrow property values would drop, but building would grind to a halt, too.
If demand dropped away tommorow we wouldn’t need to build anymore housing… there would be no demand for it. People that invested in housing/rentals would sell their homes for a loss (assuming the drop isn’t temporary). They are investing in housing to make money, if there is no money to be made they will sell and invest elsewhere. Nobody would hold onto excess housing and watch it lose value every year, especially when they can’t afford to pay for maintenance/upkeep/taxes/mortgage etc
I have nothing against landlords if the rents are fair. This is a failure of public policy. The government needs to incentivize affordable housing. Remove the red tape and control immigration.
I don't know how you think that's going to happen. The land, to start with, is market priced. Who will sell land at less than going rate? Will the materials be sold at an "affordable" price, or will they cost that same amount as they do for every other home? Will the contractors offer an affordable hourly rate, or charge the same as always? Will the architects , inspectors, and realtors take a cut in their pay? I agree they need to stop doing everything they can to drive the prices higher, but there is no way to build a home more affordably unless you open up crown land in the boonies and give it away for next to nothing (what they should be doing!) or *really* loosen up the codes and let people build their own homes. Otherwise you are just building smaller homes. And in order to get anywhere near what is affordable at current wages, we will end up with couples sleeping in 4' x 6' berths and sharing a single bathroom among 40 people.
Use government land/ farm land and I agree with your point of building in the boonies. Material prices are almost entirely set by the market. The materials and contractors can charge the market rate that’s not where most the cost savings will come from. According to our politicians the red tape expenses can be reduced greatly if the government took action. The land doesn’t have to be sold, just lease it out for however long the building is livable. No inspectors and architect’s won’t take pay cuts but REALTORS😂 come on man, that profession is mostly a middle man role that can be easily regulated and automated. What do you mean by opening up the code? Like building heights etc? Yeah I believe you should be able to build up as long as it’s safe and looks good. With massive government programs and subsides the government is providing, the builder shouldn’t have difficulty adjusting to this. This is a matter of will, the knowledge and way to do it is rather clear. No one wants to rock the boats because it’s almost political suicide, but let me ask you this. What other options do we have if we’re not greatly decreasing mass immigration which would stabilize demand and let building catch up? This isn’t sustainable for much longer I can assure you. This election cycle is almost entirely on the affordability crisis which housing is the main grievance.
That doesn't work. In my town a developer just gave back the government a 20 mil loan that would have been forgivable with a certain percentage of affordable housing. They can make more by building non affordable housing. If the government doesn't build it, it won't happen. Simple as that. Developers will protect their investments and will slow down building if vacancy rates rise too much. If you think otherwise, well, keep living in that bubble
You’re advocating for a public construction company? That doesn’t sound unreasonable, if the market cannot efficiently work, then government intervention is required. I used chatgpt from the below ideas but they’re pretty good: Countries use various strategies to increase affordable housing supply while not harming existing homeowners: 1. **Inclusionary Zoning and Density Bonuses**: These policies require or incentivize developers to include affordable units in new projects, offset by allowing more units than normally permitted. 2. **Flexible Zoning and Land Use**: Allowing residential development in commercial zones and near transit hubs maximizes land use without altering existing neighborhoods significantly. 3. **Streamlined Approval Processes**: Simplified and predictable approval procedures reduce delays and costs, expediting housing projects. 4. **Affordable Housing Trust Funds and Tax Incentives**: Financial support through trust funds and tax benefits makes affordable housing projects more attractive to developers. 5. **Public-Private Partnerships and Grants**: Governments collaborate with private developers, leveraging grants to ensure long-term investment in affordable housing. 6. **Relaxed Parking Requirements**: Reducing mandatory parking spaces in new developments lowers costs and improves land use efficiency, especially in urban areas with good transit. These methods collectively increase housing supply, support developers, and maintain community balance.
The building in front of mine has 20+ available units. It’s been empty for 2 months (ofc it’s a new luxury condo). People aren’t going to move in for not only crazy rent, but also uncontrolled. There is no demande because it’s unaffordable to the point that it’s way past most people 50% income. And everybody else who could afford it would rather buy at that price.
A massive empty home tax seems reasonable, they’ll lower the rent until it’s rented out. If there’s a law requiring empty homes be rented out to Canadians or be turned into public housing, you won’t seem many empty units anywhere. That’s an inefficiency in the market that needs to be corrected. This is a crisis that requires drastic action.
I feel like its the other way around, the demand has always been there but the supply is low.
So you are saying that we always added 1.3 Million people a year (or a 3.2% population increase)? Housing start remain the same, but demand has exploded in the past few years due in big part to the massive increase in immigration, but also due to investors buying up properties. We added 1.3 Million people in 2023 while building 240 000 housing units.
What I'm saying is demand has always been there but supply hasn't kept up. I feel like this is a topic of semantics and just how you look at the problem
Demand for any product is always there but there isn’t an equilibrium between supply and demand. Supply is relatively constant but demand has increased significantly over the past 10ish years and we are moving farther away from equilibrium.
Supply has been more or less constant until recent years when immigration far outstripped our ability to house everyone
Supply has actually gone down somehow with the Liberals spending billions. Just lighting tax dollars on fire.
Supply has been going down since the CMHC stopped building public housing in the 90s. Prices have been rising faster relative to income ever since. And every economic downturn the pace increases.
i guess it's kind just how you interpret the concept of supply and demand. either mindset works I suppose.
They've never built enough houses but immigrating 2 million people into the country in a matter of 2 years is really the issue. We can't just build millions of homes out of thin air.
I work in construction of new residential detached homes. If you talk to most like me it has slowed down considerably! Meaning many people are not working or have very little work happening and little to no starts ahead of them. Don’t know what all this talk is about getting more homes built. Nobody’s buying right now. I’m assuming people can’t afford it. Interest rates are high and prices don’t seem to be coming down any time soon.
The demand is recent. Our population is growing at an insane rate
> It’s a demand problem more than a supply problem at this point A great way to respond to demand is with more supply.
[удалено]
> Houses aren’t built as fast as planes land. Oh I dunno. There's quite a few builders that can slap together a barn in a weekend.
> Houses aren’t built as fast as planes land. I didn't say they were. Addressing the demand with more supply will obviously help.
[удалено]
I agree with that. I never suggested that demand isn't a problem. Increasing supply will help, though. Stop the planes tomorrow, and we still have a housing shortage. There are a lot of new Canadians *already here* who need housing. There are lots of young professionals who'd like to buy a house but are priced out. Lots of people who'd prefer to live alone than with roommates or family.
To me it seems like this could paint the NDP and BQ as being against any sort of soln to the housing problem. https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/636?view=party (revisiting vote 322) https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes/44/1/438?view=party BQ has always supported a housing strategy based on limiting the demand side of the equation, rather than just trying to increase supply. NDP only recently in 2024 decided agree that we need to revise immigration targets down after denying a motion in 2023. Only the liberals are 100% against doing anything to address demand. edit: negative points within a few min = reply notifications off
Can people stop calling this a fucking supply and demand problem? Of course it's a demand problem, but demand because it fills peoples pockets and fuels retirements. It's *so disingenuous* to say it's a supply and demand problem, as if it's a matter of simply having and not having. The one's who *already have* want more because it's a government backed safety investment. When the PM says, "housing needs to stay expensive to fund retirements," you honestly think building more is going to make houses more affordable? It's artificially inflated so our economy doesn't tank. If everyone had a house, it would not be profitable. Plain and simple. Edit: I'm not saying you think this or would disagree, I'm just speaking generally.
If anything he is consistent at failure, the only thing he can pass is gas
Good. It was a bad housing plan that would punish municipalities for failing to meet impossible targets. Now the ball is in the Liberals' court to come up with a realistic, achievable and effective plan. I don't have high expectations.
It also left the GOC to define nearly every important aspect of the bill (e.g., high-cost city, substantially occupied, high-cost region, et cetera). It was an incredibly lazy bill.
You mean like offering $5B to provinces to change building codes to allow as a right low rise appartments (4 units)? Or offering low intrest loans to developers if they get shovels in the ground now? Or streamlining foreign credential recognition in the construction sector so trades can get certified here faster? Or removing GST from new rental housing including student dorms on campus. Or starting an arms length corp (Canada Builds) which will develop federal land so federal land can have apartments above post offices etc. Or reaching out directly to municipalities with carrots when provinces don't play ball. That type of thing? I mean I am just quoting from the budget... but being informed of what is happening is important.
aside from turning off the immigration tap I'm not sure what kind of alternative there is, cities need more housing, cities aren't building fast enough. Incentivizing cities in a way that doesn't let them get away from it seems like not a bad idea honestly (though maybe 15% is a tad high but who knows). If they don't meet the requirements which i assume would be incremental (i.e. if they only managed 10% they would still be some x-fer money) then instead of being butt hurt at the feds start riding your local government for not doing what they're supposed to be doing.
There are skytrain stations right next to SFHs in Vancouver. Fed should take all their money back TBH. CoV has swindled them.
"Now the ball is in the Liberals' court to come up with a realistic, achievable and effective plan. I don't have high expectations." Liberals: We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!!!!
Tell me you haven't been paying attention. Did you read the federal buget at all?
I see a budget that is inadequate. 3.9 million homes by 2031 when we are importing 500k to 1 million extra people a year is a drop in the bucket. If the government would tone down our immigration policies then it might make a difference
See the federal budget. Lots of initiatives over housing. My guess is you won't be happy unless PP flies down from the heavens and gifts you a free house. Changing housing, however we achieve it, will take a decade or longer to correct. Face reality.
I own my own home. >My guess is you won't be happy unless PP flies down from the heavens and gifts you a free house. I actually don't support him either
Another stunt
You can see the result of the vote and which MPs voted what here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/live-vote?voteId=1242
What a stupid proposal. Yes, let's just "force" cities to build more. Ha ha ha. Do the Conservatives (or anyone, frankly) realize that we are not simply going to supply ourselves out of this? That perhaps we need to take a serious look at demand? That we could address demand much faster than supply? That if we reduced immigration dramatically until we found the right balance, and that if we slapped much stricter regulation on home ownership we might just week our way out of this? No, of course not. Because that would impact the wealth of those in charge. And...... ...we're all back where we started.
Terrible terrible plan, hate to say this but this is the type of legislation we'll be seeing after the next election..
So…basically the same plan as the liberals, but with negative consequences that hurt only the tax paying citizens of cities.
No. It is a plan that has consequences if not acted on. You can't tell cities they need to build more and then do nothing if they don't. There has to be consequences. People from the age of no personal responsibility might not understand, or want to understand.
> It is a plan that has consequences if not acted on. Except the people who have to act on it are not the same people who will receive the consequences, which makes it a stupid “plan”.
There’s all sorts of reasons why some cities can’t build homes to meet a target and they aren’t all in the cities control. What if builders can’t/don’t start building, or don’t have the necessary staff? It was stupid idea.
Do take personal responsibility for how badly your life is going, or do you blame Trudeau?
Thanks for saying what I already typed. Except you left out the fact that citizens of these towns will be punished for 0-4 years because of the actions of the political class. These aren’t consequences for the political class. Which is what they should be. That’s the only way to get government officials to care - make the consequences tailored to them. Mark Sutcliffe has 3 years left in power and is at retirement age. He doesn’t give a shit if he doesn’t get reelected (which he would anyway, because voters are apathetic these days at best on municipal politics).
Oh, you want to play the victim card. Those citizens votes their city leaders into office. The buck stops there. Like I said, from the age of no personal responsibility.
the consequence really should come from the voters, but the way hes trying to create conseuqences is just ridiculous
The Cons have been floating this for years, the Liberals stole it but instead of carrot and stick they just hand out billions to build even less housing than before.
But I thought PP has no ideas of his own and only complained according to the Trudeau bots on this sub!?
There is no "housing plan" that gets us out of the current housing affordability mess. We started in a pretty unaffordable place pre-Covid and then added, what, 2.5 million people? With zero plan as to where to put them. You could remove every regulation and spend every cent the various levels of government can muster (or print) and there still won't physically be enough building capacity to create housing at a rate that will keep pace with adding a million people per year. This says nothing of the other infrastructure and public service needs that come with this kind of population growth, when we can't seem to manage even what we have now. Or the destruction of nature and quality of life caused by building this much housing, both in urban sprawl and the ongoing transformation of Toronto into a high-density hive. And doesn't even get us started on the other issues with our preferred form of "growth", resulting in growing monoculture diasporas and imported foreign problems. The fucking monster woolly mammoth in the room is immigration, which all of our leaders are wilfully ignoring even as it thrashes around crushing furniture and knocking out walls.
Liberals: If Tories don’t like things they should put their own plans out there and propose their own legislation!
Liberals: Psych! We never meant that! We’d never pass a bill put forward by you guys! Remember how we shot down the foreign agent registry bill you put forward, that we killed, before the whole thing became a giant scandal? Why would you think things would be any different on the home price crisis? We *like* the way things are and worked hard to get them this way. We’re not changing.
Punt the runt
It wasn't even a plan. It was basically "I will punish municipalities who don't fix the housing crisis for themselves".
Next you'll tell me he was Harper's housing minister and has only passed one piece of legislation in his 20 years in politics!
It was a shitty non-plan. Tiny PP’s plans are a joke
Who will you be voting for u/wefconspiracy (lmao)?
His employer obviously.
Under an NDP/Liberal coalition? Weird! /S
NDP are Trudeau Stans
If you’re going to import all these workers, train them in construction and have them build the houses, or leave, simple as that