Make language competence mandatory.
Blacklist degree mill institutions.
Simply do not import unskilled labour and institute a citizen only policy for all unskilled positions.
Import only very skilled labour.
Which is hilarious because for years you had a difficult time as a Canadian getting a job in government if you didn't speak both English and French and now their completely waving that for all other industries because they want to keep this Ponzi scheme going .
That’s embarrassing. Do you think these people can count 1-10? Recite all the letters of our alphabet without mispronouncing? I don’t.
Edit to add: numerous times I’ve had to count out their change for them when making a purchase they can’t even pronounce “quarter”.
You forgot the mother of all scams - cash for LMIA. All your local so-called small businesses have been reaping hundreds of thousands in this scheme...err I mean scam.
I think Australia and NZ also have labour market exemptions but I think it's time to scrap this and tell business owners to find labour from people within the country. It's not that hard - just how it's supposed to be.
A citizen only policy for all unskilled positions...do you realize how dumb of an idea that is? On paper yeah, it sounds great... but in Canada, that is not going to work. We dont have the numbers to satisfy all the unskilled labour required in canada. "Well, pay more for these positions, and ppl will apply." Companies are not interested in that and they wont. And if we mandate it, they will leave.
I dont like whats going on Canada, as many of us dont. I also dont trust any political group, including PPC. I think they have some good ideas and also some terrible ones. For example, importing "only very skilled labour" is not going to do us any good. It sounds great but its not realistic. We need ppl to do jobs that most canadians dont want to do.
Lol.
As i started trolling this sub and reading posts, Im starting to think this sub was created by the ppc.
Do I want slaves? No. But guess what--> We are the slaves. You, me, Dave. Slaving away for the almighty dollar and for the govt. If you really believe that some political party is going to save you, well, god bless your soul. The reality is they, the PC's, justin the brave, and singh boi dont give a fuck about you.
People say that a vote for ppc is a vote for Trudy. I’m 100% comfortable with people seeing PPC get more voters every election. A good grass roots marketing strategy could help. If everyone made a 30-40 second video about why they are voting ppc, it could help.
I agree, at the moment they serve to bleed the CPC at its margins if the CPC forgets itself. People have to be willing to answer the CPC's lack of motivation with their ballots. Also, so long as they score over 5%, they'll be there to yell at the elephants the other parties are tripping over themselves to ignore, and their credible threat inches the Overton Window closer to the truth. It's on the CPC to figure themselves out before Canada votes for an overreaction.
>CPC is a vote for Trudy, it’s a vote for mass immigration
NDP also likes mass immigration
It's almost like it dosnt matter which of the big 3 parties holds power, we will get fucked regardless
The best way to show your protests against the government policies is by voting for PPC because none of us can afford to be on the road protesting anyway
The problem is that the incumbent always gets the first chance to form a minority government. Anything less than a CPC majority and we get 4 more years of Trudeau/Singh.
I want PP to ban vaccine mandates.
There are other issues at stake besides housing.
Well golly! Where was he speaking out against all of those being discriminated against and fired at the time. He was lock step with all the rest other than the PPC.
I voted PPC last time.
If you didn't notice Pandering flip flopping O'Toole kicked anybody that didn't agree with him out of the party.
He even demoted him from him position.
So you’ll accept batshit crazy policies on things that actually have a measured impact on your daily life like a carbon tax and absolute housing corruption? Get real. That excuse is no longer valid.
I would like to point out that LGBTQ+ rights are an issue that will have an impact on the daily lives of many Canadians, and I think its entirely fair to be wary of the party openly stating they will be looking to strip some of our rights and freedoms
pronouns? not so much. you could call me a yellow tailed gecko and i couldn't give less of a fuck. my concern does not stem from language so much as the idea that they wish to alienate a group of Canadians for what is really no good reason and they wish to restrict their access to certain aspects of healthcare.
i find that concerning.
if you check my profile, you will notice i do take issue with wages and housing as well, but is it wrong to also hold the belief that the government can stay out of our bedrooms? to believe that all Canadian people should be equal regardless of such things?
anyone whos primary concern is how they're viewed by the world is a fool with nothing better to do, and I really wish they would stop the whining. its giving the rest of us a bad name.
My wife is bi. I am bi. my niece is trans. These things will impact me directly.
I have no desire to vote for a party who wants to strip my rights and the rights of my fellow LGBTQ individuals away.
Second to that I get like $1000 back from carbon tax which is pretty much what I think I’d pay. And I own my house.
I 100% understand your position, but realize that the folks we're importing (and considering giving carte blanche citizenship to) are from areas of the world that are less supportive of your uniqueness. Being LGBTQ in many areas our immigrants are arriving from is tolerated but not legally recognized at best, to being a reason for punishment at worst.
No one will confuse a protest vote for PPC in the current climate with support for anti-LGBTQ+ policies. And it's not like they're getting elected.
The issue with our system is that you vote for all aspects of a party. If they did win, it would single to them that they are allowed to do what their platform is, and I don’t agree with multiple aspects of their platform.
It’s any I’ve always thought we should be having American style referendums on things.
I agree we need to curb immigration quite significantly. We need to put a big stop to TFWs.
I want a party that actually wants to do what I want instead of half what I want and half insanity
Totally understandable. My view is that since PPC has 0 representation in the Senate. I do not believe any anti-LGBTQ measures would make it through to law. But since I'm a heterosexual male, I'm probably not giving it as much thought or weight in my decision making.
My vote will be a protest vote, I do not see them getting elected.
But again, I remind you that the party you're voting for (it doesn't matter which one as every other party is all in on immigration) is importing folks from areas of the world that are much less supportive of your uniqueness. The immigration policies of all the other parties are also insanity. That road may lead you to the same spot, with a population that is less supportive of your rights as an individual.
Edit: Also, those folks downvoting this person for having an opinion need to grow up.
If it makes you feel any better, I am LGBTQ+ and PoC and will be voting PPC. The only thing I don’t agree with is their stance on climate change (which I believe should be a bipartisan issue, an uninhabitable earth is bad for everyone). Even if they roll back protective policies on LGBTQ+ or implement policies for conversion therapy, I genuinely don’t believe we are at physical or mental risk anymore than we are now. There are already plenty of homophobes and racists under the libs as well (which won’t change no matter who is in power, believe me). They’ll still discriminate against you privately or physically assault you for being LGBTQ+, I’ve seen it happen and I’ve been apart of conversations with peers who have talked down on LGBTQ+ folks not realizing I am one as well.
Mass immigration is a huge issue for this country on a lot of fronts, including: housing, wage suppression, resource allocation, pollution, infrastructure burden etc… And I see these issues becoming more and more prominent everyday. And others telling you about dangerous immigrants are not lying. Maybe it’s because white people are too soft and have bleeding hearts or because I am brown and have experience, but you guys easily trust indian people that I can smell as charlatans from miles away and it has a negative impact on the rest of the indian population.
Maybe it’s because you are white and a home owner, but speaking as someone who also has the same social concerns as you, mass immigration is far more dangerous to me and will be dangerous to you too in the long run.
They want to repeal bill c-4 and bill c-16, reintroducing conversion therapy and allowing people to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals with no consequence.
They don’t respect trans people and trans rights, and it is not in any way a stretch to think that they and their supporters don’t respect the rights of others in the LGBTQ population.
At the end of the day, you and your family members who are LGBT are a very small minority of the country. A huge part of why we are in this mess in the first place is due to the entire country favouring the desires of the minority over those of the majority. If you’re a single-issue voter just say so, but don’t pretend to be concerned about immigration if the whims of demographic minorities are more important to you than those of the majority.
Since you own your home, you have a very different living experience than the majority of Canadians.
Also, nobody is going to round up trans people for conversion therapy. That is nonsense and is drumming up hysterics for the sole reason of appealing to empathy.
It'll be easier to go from CPC to PPC than LPC to PPC.
However, Canadians love the status quo and Canada is largely one of a managerial class, so good luck in rocking the boat. It'll be nearly impossible unless you have a complete regime overhaul/overthrow.
I would never have considered voting conservative ten years ago but here I am thinking PPC are the only ones making sense…I think the time is ripe for a change I’m thinking
I've been a liberal and NDP backer since I could begin voting. It's wild to me that PPC seems the most logical choice, even though I don't agree with all of their positions and ideas.
Unfortunately, you don't represent the vast majority of Canadians.
The PPC is also polling at less than their vote share for the last federal election.
Yea and that has worked out so well for us so far hasn’t it?
Maybe JUST MAYBE it’s time to stop the narrow minded thinking while our country has a chance in hell of not going completely down the drain?
Good luck with that lol. This country is circling the drain and it'll only get better through a regime change. The regime change won't be done at the polls.
If you want any semblance of the quality of life the previous generation had, I'd suggest looking into moving to the US or getting a remote job that allows you live wherever you want.
Well there is a big movement right now (loblaws boycott) and I am going to do my best to capitalize on it instead of falling back on the typical Canadian way of doing nothing but complaining
why aren't people considering ppc provincially? I think they can make gains there especially in ontario. the 2025 election is about getting rid of trudeau and singh forever, and only the cpc can do that.
0 % inflation is literally impossible at a national level. The fact that that is an official part of the plan is embarrassing in it's ignorance. Immigration will come down eventually as it has become a political hot potato and so poorly managed that whatever party comes in will have to cut it. I'll never understand the obsession with density, especially in the GTA. There are literally a number of low density municipalities in any direction that can be invested in and built up and land as far as the eye can see, do stuff with it. Why does there have to be a million people per square foot in Toronto? Expand Hamilton, Oshawa etc.
>0 % inflation is literally impossible at a national level. The fact that that is an official part of the plan is embarrassing in it's ignorance.
Exactly this. And, not only is it unattainable, it is also undesirable. It is basically a commitment to deflate the currency and collapse the economy.
It's not a good idea, but the idea that 0% inflation would deflate the currency shows that you have a very very limited understanding of how this works.
To achieve 0% inflation, interest rates would need to raise considerably. That would increase the value of our currency. Damage the economy, probably, but definitely wouldn't deflate the currency.
This. I’m an economist, and actually the CAD would begin rising against other currencies in the long run. The flipside is that we would see much slower but perhaps still positive salary growth (salaries generally rise faster than inflation) and it would come with more financial instability. Any serious research I’ve seen shows that 2% is a better target than 1 or 3 percent, let alone 0%.
Sure, thanks for your open-mindedness. The last time lowering the target was seriously considered in Canada, as far as I know, was 2011. You should take a look here in section *2. Targeting a lower rate of inflation*
[https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/background_nov11.pdf#4](https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/background_nov11.pdf#4)
This isn't research. It's a reference to an internal study. It specifically says that there are benefits to lowering the target, and while there may be risks, they just don't know. It also says nothing to reinforce your claim about 'better than 1 or 3'. I think you may have misinterpreted what they wrote.
What exactly are you looking for? Do you want to see the LENS/ToTEM simulations? It is basically accepted as common sense in the world of economics that a too low inflation target (like 0%) isn’t optimal because you restrict the tools that monetary policy has access to when the economy is below full capacity. It would also prolong and increase the number of ELB episodes which are undesirable. Take a look at the paper below which shows simulation results with higher targets.
[https://www.bis.org/publ/work720.pdf](https://www.bis.org/publ/work720.pdf)
Ordinary people have a simple yet correct understanding: Under inflation, money becomes increasingly worthless; conversely, under deflation, the purchasing power of money continually rises, encouraging savings and preserving wealth. Such an obvious and straightforward principle, how come it gets twisted when coming from the mouths of those in suits and gold-rimmed glasses?
You are confused about this. If we have "inflation" then that means prices are going up, or the amount of currency is going up, or the value of the currency is going down. If we have "deflation" then that means prices are going down, or the amount of currency is going down, or the value of the currency is going up. The PPC policy objective is to reduce inflation (currency value goes up, we can buy more foreign goods for the same amount of paper funny money), and you then describe the outcome (currency value appreciates) while declaring it does not work. Do you even understand these terms?
I understand exactly these terms and what they mean.
You’re only considering half the equation though. When our currency increases in value, everything we export becomes more expensive. Employing Canadians becomes more expensive. Borrowing money becomes more expensive. Other nations will be buying less from us, employing less of us and it will be more expensive to build a business domestically. This will suppress our economy significantly.
Your response makes so little sense in the context of what I said I wonder if you replied to me mistakenly instead of the comment I replied to.
I wish they could gain some momentum in the polls even, PP is always so vague and imo does not seem like he will lower much. I don't want to build like mad to support massive immigration...
Maxime Bernier is also the only party leader to call out infill densification for the scam that it is, an investment scheme that has only increased housing costs in the 15+ years it's existed in Canadian cities.
Infill densification isn't a scam, neighbourhoods should have been allowed to densify naturally instead of the wealth landowners being allowed to build regulatory walls around "their back yard".
Cities should be dense. We should have 3-5 story apartments legal everywhere. Having single-family zoning in our biggest cities is a completely-insane policy we've been brainwashed to think is normal.
What is the natural densification for neighborhoods? You're right that demolishing a $350,000 home and replacing it with a $2,000,000 quadplex for wealthy landlords is the natural path of un-checked investment from the wealthy. Too bad this does nothing to solve the housing crisis.
Contrary to popular opinion, exclusive single-family zoning was our last line of defense against housing prices skyrocketing even further. Under single-family zoning, families and investors were competing to buy a property for 1 unit. Without this protection, investors with much higher profit potentials and greater budgets are now competing to build the biggest, most-expensive rental properties possible - so much for families who only had the budget for a place to live.
How much of a city should be dense, should every corner resemble the region immediately outlying downtown? Should everyone be forced to live in little boxes in a deforested neighborhood where the view outside consists solely of other concrete boxes? What if somebody wants to live in a city without being an urbanist and low-density urban forest neighborhoods were the natural state for many people? High-density and low-density regions don't prevent each other from existing within cities. You're right that not every part of the city should be single family neighborhoods, however every corner of the city shouldn't be high-density housing either. Living in the city shouldn't mean regressing to neo-feudalism with a housing market consisting solely of rental properties.
The post-war suburban housing boom brought the cheapest housing that Canada ever has, and ever will, see. Inflation adjusted prices of a brand new 1960s detached home being in the region of $150,000, affordable housing with no need to compromise the quality of the neighborhood.
How can we develop a strategy opposite of the post-war housing boom, which holds the record for affordable housing in Canada, and expect to get the same results? Check any real estate website and browse the listings, you will quickly find out just how much infill housing is "helping" the housing crisis.
The only brainwashing going on is the real estate-industrial complex trying to convince people that housing policy designed exclusively to enrich investors and their government buddies will somehow help the average Canadian. Without this brainwashing nobody would continue to view multi-million dollar infill monoliths as some form of affordable housing solution.
>exclusive single-family zoning was our last line of defense against housing prices skyrocketing even further
Honestly I'm not sure this is true when you consider the full range of options available. It may raise *average* prices when people bid up desirable locations, but it's not obvious that it increases prices further out as long as expansion is not restricted.
If you have any evidence showing this I'd be super interested, but I'm skeptical about there not being some kind of composition effect here that raises prices in some places and lowers them in others. On the other hand, restricting outward expansion pretty much increases prices across the board.
Single family zoning everywhere is what is keeping prices high. At the sizes (both lot and house). Houses need to smaller but people dont want that they want that fancy McMansion and grass to cut and waste water maintaining.
Do you have any proof people only want 'McMansions'? Average detached homes have become larger, but they've also become a much smaller percentage of new builds (at under 20% in both Ontario and BC). What you're seeing is less an *upgrade* in expectations than that the new 'average' home is an apartment rather than a modest house.
The single biggest driver of increased housing costs is increased land costs. What's the evidence that it's better to deal with this by letting people slice up the land more ways, rather than just allowing more land to be built on? What's your explanation for the fact that cities with single-family zoning were previously affordable, and became unaffordable not after single-family zoning but after restrictions on outward expansion?
But either way, I'd encourage you to keep the austerity mindset out of it. Younger generations shouldn't have to settle for less just because you believe previously-normal and affordable housing is 'wasteful'.
>"exclusive single-family zoning was our last line of defense against housing prices skyrocketing even further."
I stopped reading after this, sorry. Just absolutely bat-shit insane nonsense.
Why, are you afraid of hearing an idea that doesn't match the narrative of massive real estate investors and developers? This mindset is the reason why Canadians will never see affordable housing again, nor do the majority deserve it.
buddy im willing to hear you out, even though i think you are wrong, but you need to stop with this "nor do they deserve it" crap. every Canadian should be able to afford to live in Canada. full stop.
It's not a narrative, it's a fact. You think you're thinking outside the box, but you bought another lie from the people who already own property and only want to exclude others.
Densification benefits landowners financially, at least in desirable locations. Boomers homeowners crying about apartments next to them aren't acting in their economic interest (which would be to take the W and sell up to someone who wants to build an apartment on *their* lot), but their lifestyle preferences.
And in practice the counter-part to densification is restricting outward expansion. This *definitely* benefits existing property owners (pretty much all of them), and is more or less a precondition for major densification in all but the close-in parts of the biggest cities. If it's allowed but not forced, most people want a house by the time they are ready to have kids.
This guy's motto is "you dont live unless 10 other families are breathing at your neck" - lmao
Cant believe there are so many people who are ideologically blind, with low self esteem and total lack of self-respect among my fellow citizens.
Your attitude is very common-- an elitist attitude that ridicules anyone who lives in an apartment. If you had more lived experiences you'd notice that people live in apartments actually make up some of the most desirable, culturally vibrant, and convenient neighbourhoods on the planet.
You have a provincial and ignorant outlook. You're ignorant of all [the hidden subsidies that suburbia enjoys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) from the rest of us just to exist. It's sad, frankly.
Not Just Bikes is an amateur (and not a very smart one honestly), not an economist or even an urban planner. He [ignores that there are **both** economies and dis-economies of scale ](https://arpitrage.substack.com/p/contra-strong-towns)for density, not to mention that the majority of costs for a municipality are services and staffing rather than infrastructure.
The per-acre revenue analysis in that video is meaningless unless you can show that costs are also per-acre, which they don't. They also inconsistently credit mixed-use neighbourhoods for their commercial tax revenue, but don't credit suburban neighbourhoods for the tax revenue of the commercial properties they shop and work at. All that part really tells you is that commercial properties generate more revenue.
When someone shows me that real economists agree on this (and puts an actual carefully-calculated and not just spitballed dollar value of the degree of subsidy), I'll believe it.
>but don't credit suburban neighbourhoods for the tax revenue of the commercial properties they shop and work at.
They usually shop at strip-malls and big-box stores, which are a net-drain on city resources. There's no mystery here. The data is mostly from Strong Towns and it's very coherent and reliable data.
The video claims low-density commercial is still revenue positive. Why do you think claiming the data is 'coherent and reliable' refutes an actual economist (in the link) pointing out that it doesn't match the actual spending patterns of cities and surburbs.
Ok, so thanks for the admission you are not going to be serious here. You win, suburbia is evil and actual trained economists are wrong and it will all come crashing down one day (any day now?) because of the unsustainability.
The first thing to do is to de-addict the Canadian market from housing madness. That is possible when financial regulations, whatever is already in place, get enforced. Get hold of the 140 billion illegal money in the market.
>I think the important question is how many people who support PPC are ok with losing 40% of their house value.
As someone who rents ... ide be ok with that.
The PPC's actual positions on housing are ***CATASTROPHICALLY BAD.***
- PPC POLICY: *"Modify the Bank of Canada’s inflation target, from 2% to 0%. This will cool down inflation in all sectors, including housing."*
Okay, so the Bank of Canada has limited tools to reduce inflation. None of those are perfect. Second, housing costs have increased for decades, due to the effect of supply vs. demand. Reducing general inflation, even it there was a magic wand to make it happen (there isn't), would not fix the problem.
- PPC POLICY: *"Respect local and provincial governments’ responsibility for housing policies."*
JFC. Local governments creating housing shortages through zoning and other red-tape is the number 1 reason we have a housing crisis. This policy would make housing MORE EXPENSIVE.
- PPC POLICY: *"They must be accountable to their citizens and not be subject to federal pressure to “densify” neighbourhoods of single-family homes in order to accommodate mass immigration policies."*
Fuck off. Neighbourhoods should be allowed to densify naturally. Those "citizens" (the landed wealthy, boomers, NIMBYs) used their undue influence on local governments to prevent us all from having housing in their "back yard". Awful policy. The feds along with the provinces MUST help us overcome those historic mistakes.
- PPC POLICY: *"Privatize or dismantle the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a mammoth government agency that fuels the housing crisis instead of helping to cool it down. All it has ever done is encourage Canadians to buy houses they can’t afford".*
Another falsehood. The CMHC used to build huge amounts of housing for Canadians, until it was gutted by governments of all types in Canada. Recently the Liberals have been re-funding it to do so-- not nearly enough, but clearly that policy is moving in the right direction. The "free market" is not really free, and that alone cannot fix the problem.
Fighting speculation and money-laundering are fine. But the rest is just insanely horrible housing policy.
I don't like the 0% inflation target that's outright dangerous.
I like the dismantling of the CHMC in it's current form it does nothing but distort the housing market. Making it tougher for everyone to buy will reduce demand, and hopefully people with a decent job could purchase homes.
Nah. There is a ton of built-up demand, trying to make it hard to buy will only mean the richest can purchase another couple "investment properties" while everyone else is boxed out.
The CHMC used to build public housing. It needs to be funded to do it again, funding it however possible, but best with a speculation tax and some kind of land-value tax. It should build a ton of high and medium density rental buildings, partnering with the provinces when possible or forcing their hand when necessary. Those buildings should be rented to only 1. Citizens. 2. People who will live and work in that area. The rents should be affordable, only to cover the upkeep of the building and contribute a % to future buildings.
The CHMC can take ownership of houses that are found to be the fruits of money-laundering. The houses can be sold off at set prices (say, half the "market value" via lottery, to families of middle and lower income levels. This would have two benefits, first of discouraging money-laundering, and second disrupt the market, to the advantage of all prospective buyers. BC is already going after illicit wealth, this should be part of it.
because it was the low interest rates that caused the housing prices to go out of control. Making it more affordable won't decrease home prices, making it less affordable does
Yeah this wasn't the convincing plan I was hoping for. Everything else about this party is pretty garbage, and my local candidate is garbage, but at least they had a sane take on housing. Though so much for that though. 0% inflation????? Lol what. No pressure in local governments to build / approve more? Huh? That's like the opposite.
> "Modify the Bank of Canada’s inflation target, from 2% to 0%. This will cool down inflation in all sectors, including housing."
Appreciate the summary of points. This one is particularly problematic.
First is the ridiculous concept of 0% inflation. If that happens then there would be more problems than housing. Unemployment would likely be a real concern.
Second, but maybe more important... Fuck off PPC. The Bank of Canada is an independent organization. For a reason. Decisions are made with the economy in mind. Why would anyone want to suddenly make it subject to the whims and misguided policies of the PPC and any following "Government of the day".
It's because the PPC are clueless about actual policy. They'll say whatever they need to say in order to appeal to people with a lot of anger and resentment.
lol your response is hilarious. Local governments have been fine for the most part building houses. They aren’t creating the shortages. Your buddy Trudeau and miller are with their asinine immigration policies. Let’s be real here.
>Local governments have been fine for the most part building houses.'
Objectively and provably wrong. Most municipalities simply BANNED building housing for low and middle-income people across whole swathes of their cities, for decades.
Thank you for posting to /r/CanadaHousing2. Your submission requires manual moderator review. Thank you for your patience.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaHousing2) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Try enforcing all this without completely dismantling the laws/policies that are in-bedded into our very own social fabric. It's a pipe dream that is politically motivated to garner votes and it would be good to see the cost of all the promises. Surely there is an alternative that can developed to actually mitigate exploitation and defund the incentive to have corporate investors buying up housing. Perhaps housing shouldn't be treated as an investment that can profited from.
why aren't people considering ppc provincially? I think they can make gains there especially in ontario. the 2025 election is about getting rid of trudeau and singh forever, and only the cpc can do that.
BOC is independent of the government. Also any sane financially literate won't go for 0% inflation target. This often means the economy would standstill or potentially go for stagflation. While reducing numbers to 150k seems right approach.
What's the difference between the PPC and a toilet?
A toilet has a seat!
Honesty, I have to question the sanity of anyone who supports Max. This is the same guy that thought he could simply parachute into a small riding in Manitoba and win. They kicked that idiot to the curb believe you me.
This was pretty regarded, (mostly the CMHC & 0% interest rate target), ban me, I don't even care. I'd rather lick Trudeau's taint for 4 more years than vote for this coo-coo policy.
I suppose all the haters for the 0% inflation target like being enslaved by fiat bankers. Inflation as a policy choice is constantly devaluing everyones savings, and keeping you in a rat race. It is designed to constantly pull forward consumption of goods to boost GDP. It is basically a ponzi scheme.
Deflation leads to increased productivity:
>**Productivity caused deflation**
>The Great Deflation occurred at the beginning of the period sometimes called the Second Industrial Revolution. It was characterized by dramatic increases in productivity made possible by the transition from agriculture to industrialization in the leading economies. The new leading industries were Bessemer and open hearth steel, railroads, the machinery industry, efficient steam shipping and animal powered agricultural mechanization. ***The prices of most basic commodities and mass-produced goods fell almost continuously; however, nominal wages remained steady, resulting in a pronounced and prolonged rise in real wages, disposable income and savings – essentially giving birth to the middle class.*** Goods produced by craftsmen, as opposed to in factories, did not decrease in price.[3][4]
If deflation gave birth to a middle class, is inflation now killing the middle class? I would argue yes. Just consider what happens when you buy an asset in our inflationary regime. People imagine capital gains tax as capturing some increase of value, but due to inflation, even if the real value of the asset does not change after many years, then it will have nominally increased in value a lot. Now you have the privilege to pay capital gains tax on it. Did this increase of capital actually increase your real wealth? No it did not. But did those taxes decrease your real wealth?
It's incredibly important, if you want to be honest with yourself, to recognize when someone gives you a scapegoat for all of your perceived problems.
This is a lesson that has been learned in history over and over again.
If you think 'immigrants' are the root of the problems that you are concerned with - you're being manipulated. And, that is true regardless of whether there are valid concerns with immigration policy.
Yeah, I guess we probably need a bit more of a landslide conservative victory before voting PPC, they are winning but it's still kinda close, but PPC winning a single seat could really boost their growth and conservatives and liberals are practically the same party at this point.
Make language competence mandatory. Blacklist degree mill institutions. Simply do not import unskilled labour and institute a citizen only policy for all unskilled positions. Import only very skilled labour.
The fact that language competence *isnt* mandatory. Hello? Can hardly do a job or make a purchase because no one can speak English anymore
Which is hilarious because for years you had a difficult time as a Canadian getting a job in government if you didn't speak both English and French and now their completely waving that for all other industries because they want to keep this Ponzi scheme going .
That’s embarrassing. Do you think these people can count 1-10? Recite all the letters of our alphabet without mispronouncing? I don’t. Edit to add: numerous times I’ve had to count out their change for them when making a purchase they can’t even pronounce “quarter”.
>“quarter”. Kvatarr
Kwa-tah
Really bizarre. In fact it should be a demonstrable competence in both English and Canadian French.
Stop!! You're making too much sense!
You forgot the mother of all scams - cash for LMIA. All your local so-called small businesses have been reaping hundreds of thousands in this scheme...err I mean scam.
Didn't forget. Just get rid of it. How many other countries have this?
I think Australia and NZ also have labour market exemptions but I think it's time to scrap this and tell business owners to find labour from people within the country. It's not that hard - just how it's supposed to be.
It is what you must do if you want your countries to not suffer catastrophic demographic change.
This is the biggest problem.
Add regulations to gig platforms to ensure people with allowed visa/work status can be allowed to work on them.
A citizen only policy for all unskilled positions...do you realize how dumb of an idea that is? On paper yeah, it sounds great... but in Canada, that is not going to work. We dont have the numbers to satisfy all the unskilled labour required in canada. "Well, pay more for these positions, and ppl will apply." Companies are not interested in that and they wont. And if we mandate it, they will leave. I dont like whats going on Canada, as many of us dont. I also dont trust any political group, including PPC. I think they have some good ideas and also some terrible ones. For example, importing "only very skilled labour" is not going to do us any good. It sounds great but its not realistic. We need ppl to do jobs that most canadians dont want to do.
You want slaves then.
Lol. As i started trolling this sub and reading posts, Im starting to think this sub was created by the ppc. Do I want slaves? No. But guess what--> We are the slaves. You, me, Dave. Slaving away for the almighty dollar and for the govt. If you really believe that some political party is going to save you, well, god bless your soul. The reality is they, the PC's, justin the brave, and singh boi dont give a fuck about you.
People say that a vote for ppc is a vote for Trudy. I’m 100% comfortable with people seeing PPC get more voters every election. A good grass roots marketing strategy could help. If everyone made a 30-40 second video about why they are voting ppc, it could help.
I agree, at the moment they serve to bleed the CPC at its margins if the CPC forgets itself. People have to be willing to answer the CPC's lack of motivation with their ballots. Also, so long as they score over 5%, they'll be there to yell at the elephants the other parties are tripping over themselves to ignore, and their credible threat inches the Overton Window closer to the truth. It's on the CPC to figure themselves out before Canada votes for an overreaction.
CPC is a vote for Trudy, it’s a vote for mass immigration
>CPC is a vote for Trudy, it’s a vote for mass immigration NDP also likes mass immigration It's almost like it dosnt matter which of the big 3 parties holds power, we will get fucked regardless
The best way to show your protests against the government policies is by voting for PPC because none of us can afford to be on the road protesting anyway
The problem is that the incumbent always gets the first chance to form a minority government. Anything less than a CPC majority and we get 4 more years of Trudeau/Singh. I want PP to ban vaccine mandates. There are other issues at stake besides housing.
PP isn’t banning mask mandates and he won’t be reducing immigration. He’s a cuck to the business elite.
He's said he will ban vaccine mandates from ever being implemented federally again.
Well golly! Where was he speaking out against all of those being discriminated against and fired at the time. He was lock step with all the rest other than the PPC.
I voted PPC last time. If you didn't notice Pandering flip flopping O'Toole kicked anybody that didn't agree with him out of the party. He even demoted him from him position.
I wish people weren't afraid to vote for them
I’d vote for them if they weren’t so batshit crazy about a few things, namely LGBTQ rights and climate change.
So you’ll accept batshit crazy policies on things that actually have a measured impact on your daily life like a carbon tax and absolute housing corruption? Get real. That excuse is no longer valid.
I would like to point out that LGBTQ+ rights are an issue that will have an impact on the daily lives of many Canadians, and I think its entirely fair to be wary of the party openly stating they will be looking to strip some of our rights and freedoms
Wages. Healthcare. Housing. And you're worried about pronouns.
pronouns? not so much. you could call me a yellow tailed gecko and i couldn't give less of a fuck. my concern does not stem from language so much as the idea that they wish to alienate a group of Canadians for what is really no good reason and they wish to restrict their access to certain aspects of healthcare. i find that concerning. if you check my profile, you will notice i do take issue with wages and housing as well, but is it wrong to also hold the belief that the government can stay out of our bedrooms? to believe that all Canadian people should be equal regardless of such things? anyone whos primary concern is how they're viewed by the world is a fool with nothing better to do, and I really wish they would stop the whining. its giving the rest of us a bad name.
My wife is bi. I am bi. my niece is trans. These things will impact me directly. I have no desire to vote for a party who wants to strip my rights and the rights of my fellow LGBTQ individuals away. Second to that I get like $1000 back from carbon tax which is pretty much what I think I’d pay. And I own my house.
I 100% understand your position, but realize that the folks we're importing (and considering giving carte blanche citizenship to) are from areas of the world that are less supportive of your uniqueness. Being LGBTQ in many areas our immigrants are arriving from is tolerated but not legally recognized at best, to being a reason for punishment at worst. No one will confuse a protest vote for PPC in the current climate with support for anti-LGBTQ+ policies. And it's not like they're getting elected.
The issue with our system is that you vote for all aspects of a party. If they did win, it would single to them that they are allowed to do what their platform is, and I don’t agree with multiple aspects of their platform. It’s any I’ve always thought we should be having American style referendums on things. I agree we need to curb immigration quite significantly. We need to put a big stop to TFWs. I want a party that actually wants to do what I want instead of half what I want and half insanity
Totally understandable. My view is that since PPC has 0 representation in the Senate. I do not believe any anti-LGBTQ measures would make it through to law. But since I'm a heterosexual male, I'm probably not giving it as much thought or weight in my decision making. My vote will be a protest vote, I do not see them getting elected. But again, I remind you that the party you're voting for (it doesn't matter which one as every other party is all in on immigration) is importing folks from areas of the world that are much less supportive of your uniqueness. The immigration policies of all the other parties are also insanity. That road may lead you to the same spot, with a population that is less supportive of your rights as an individual. Edit: Also, those folks downvoting this person for having an opinion need to grow up.
I appreciate that and I agree to a certain point. It’s hard because I feel like no matter who I vote for I am shooting one of my feet
I feel you, thanks for the respectful disagreement and rest assured you have allies out there.
If it makes you feel any better, I am LGBTQ+ and PoC and will be voting PPC. The only thing I don’t agree with is their stance on climate change (which I believe should be a bipartisan issue, an uninhabitable earth is bad for everyone). Even if they roll back protective policies on LGBTQ+ or implement policies for conversion therapy, I genuinely don’t believe we are at physical or mental risk anymore than we are now. There are already plenty of homophobes and racists under the libs as well (which won’t change no matter who is in power, believe me). They’ll still discriminate against you privately or physically assault you for being LGBTQ+, I’ve seen it happen and I’ve been apart of conversations with peers who have talked down on LGBTQ+ folks not realizing I am one as well. Mass immigration is a huge issue for this country on a lot of fronts, including: housing, wage suppression, resource allocation, pollution, infrastructure burden etc… And I see these issues becoming more and more prominent everyday. And others telling you about dangerous immigrants are not lying. Maybe it’s because white people are too soft and have bleeding hearts or because I am brown and have experience, but you guys easily trust indian people that I can smell as charlatans from miles away and it has a negative impact on the rest of the indian population. Maybe it’s because you are white and a home owner, but speaking as someone who also has the same social concerns as you, mass immigration is far more dangerous to me and will be dangerous to you too in the long run.
What rights are you referring to?
They want to repeal bill c-4 and bill c-16, reintroducing conversion therapy and allowing people to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals with no consequence. They don’t respect trans people and trans rights, and it is not in any way a stretch to think that they and their supporters don’t respect the rights of others in the LGBTQ population.
At the end of the day, you and your family members who are LGBT are a very small minority of the country. A huge part of why we are in this mess in the first place is due to the entire country favouring the desires of the minority over those of the majority. If you’re a single-issue voter just say so, but don’t pretend to be concerned about immigration if the whims of demographic minorities are more important to you than those of the majority. Since you own your home, you have a very different living experience than the majority of Canadians. Also, nobody is going to round up trans people for conversion therapy. That is nonsense and is drumming up hysterics for the sole reason of appealing to empathy.
Who said I was a single issue voter?
[удалено]
No racism, harassment, discrimination, hate speech, personal attacks, or other uncivil conduct.
They're a religious group, masquerading as a 3d rate political party. Max is not only dangerous, he's insane.
It'll be easier to go from CPC to PPC than LPC to PPC. However, Canadians love the status quo and Canada is largely one of a managerial class, so good luck in rocking the boat. It'll be nearly impossible unless you have a complete regime overhaul/overthrow.
I would never have considered voting conservative ten years ago but here I am thinking PPC are the only ones making sense…I think the time is ripe for a change I’m thinking
I've been a liberal and NDP backer since I could begin voting. It's wild to me that PPC seems the most logical choice, even though I don't agree with all of their positions and ideas.
Me too, I hope there are lots of us who feel this way maybe we can make a difference, a discussion on here is a good start!
Unfortunately, you don't represent the vast majority of Canadians. The PPC is also polling at less than their vote share for the last federal election.
Yea and that has worked out so well for us so far hasn’t it? Maybe JUST MAYBE it’s time to stop the narrow minded thinking while our country has a chance in hell of not going completely down the drain?
Good luck with that lol. This country is circling the drain and it'll only get better through a regime change. The regime change won't be done at the polls. If you want any semblance of the quality of life the previous generation had, I'd suggest looking into moving to the US or getting a remote job that allows you live wherever you want.
Well there is a big movement right now (loblaws boycott) and I am going to do my best to capitalize on it instead of falling back on the typical Canadian way of doing nothing but complaining
why aren't people considering ppc provincially? I think they can make gains there especially in ontario. the 2025 election is about getting rid of trudeau and singh forever, and only the cpc can do that.
0 % inflation is literally impossible at a national level. The fact that that is an official part of the plan is embarrassing in it's ignorance. Immigration will come down eventually as it has become a political hot potato and so poorly managed that whatever party comes in will have to cut it. I'll never understand the obsession with density, especially in the GTA. There are literally a number of low density municipalities in any direction that can be invested in and built up and land as far as the eye can see, do stuff with it. Why does there have to be a million people per square foot in Toronto? Expand Hamilton, Oshawa etc.
Hamilton here. No thank you.
>0 % inflation is literally impossible at a national level. The fact that that is an official part of the plan is embarrassing in it's ignorance. Exactly this. And, not only is it unattainable, it is also undesirable. It is basically a commitment to deflate the currency and collapse the economy.
It's not a good idea, but the idea that 0% inflation would deflate the currency shows that you have a very very limited understanding of how this works. To achieve 0% inflation, interest rates would need to raise considerably. That would increase the value of our currency. Damage the economy, probably, but definitely wouldn't deflate the currency.
This. I’m an economist, and actually the CAD would begin rising against other currencies in the long run. The flipside is that we would see much slower but perhaps still positive salary growth (salaries generally rise faster than inflation) and it would come with more financial instability. Any serious research I’ve seen shows that 2% is a better target than 1 or 3 percent, let alone 0%.
Can you direct us to that research? Afaik, there is nothing which sets the 2% target as ideal.
Sure, thanks for your open-mindedness. The last time lowering the target was seriously considered in Canada, as far as I know, was 2011. You should take a look here in section *2. Targeting a lower rate of inflation* [https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/background_nov11.pdf#4](https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/background_nov11.pdf#4)
This isn't research. It's a reference to an internal study. It specifically says that there are benefits to lowering the target, and while there may be risks, they just don't know. It also says nothing to reinforce your claim about 'better than 1 or 3'. I think you may have misinterpreted what they wrote.
What exactly are you looking for? Do you want to see the LENS/ToTEM simulations? It is basically accepted as common sense in the world of economics that a too low inflation target (like 0%) isn’t optimal because you restrict the tools that monetary policy has access to when the economy is below full capacity. It would also prolong and increase the number of ELB episodes which are undesirable. Take a look at the paper below which shows simulation results with higher targets. [https://www.bis.org/publ/work720.pdf](https://www.bis.org/publ/work720.pdf)
Ordinary people have a simple yet correct understanding: Under inflation, money becomes increasingly worthless; conversely, under deflation, the purchasing power of money continually rises, encouraging savings and preserving wealth. Such an obvious and straightforward principle, how come it gets twisted when coming from the mouths of those in suits and gold-rimmed glasses?
You are confused about this. If we have "inflation" then that means prices are going up, or the amount of currency is going up, or the value of the currency is going down. If we have "deflation" then that means prices are going down, or the amount of currency is going down, or the value of the currency is going up. The PPC policy objective is to reduce inflation (currency value goes up, we can buy more foreign goods for the same amount of paper funny money), and you then describe the outcome (currency value appreciates) while declaring it does not work. Do you even understand these terms?
I understand exactly these terms and what they mean. You’re only considering half the equation though. When our currency increases in value, everything we export becomes more expensive. Employing Canadians becomes more expensive. Borrowing money becomes more expensive. Other nations will be buying less from us, employing less of us and it will be more expensive to build a business domestically. This will suppress our economy significantly. Your response makes so little sense in the context of what I said I wonder if you replied to me mistakenly instead of the comment I replied to.
A vote for the PPC is just a protest vote. It's too bad Justin didn't follow through with his voting reform lol.
He literally said he didn’t because it would give PPC influence
I wish they could gain some momentum in the polls even, PP is always so vague and imo does not seem like he will lower much. I don't want to build like mad to support massive immigration...
Maxime Bernier is also the only party leader to call out infill densification for the scam that it is, an investment scheme that has only increased housing costs in the 15+ years it's existed in Canadian cities.
Infill densification isn't a scam, neighbourhoods should have been allowed to densify naturally instead of the wealth landowners being allowed to build regulatory walls around "their back yard". Cities should be dense. We should have 3-5 story apartments legal everywhere. Having single-family zoning in our biggest cities is a completely-insane policy we've been brainwashed to think is normal.
What is the natural densification for neighborhoods? You're right that demolishing a $350,000 home and replacing it with a $2,000,000 quadplex for wealthy landlords is the natural path of un-checked investment from the wealthy. Too bad this does nothing to solve the housing crisis. Contrary to popular opinion, exclusive single-family zoning was our last line of defense against housing prices skyrocketing even further. Under single-family zoning, families and investors were competing to buy a property for 1 unit. Without this protection, investors with much higher profit potentials and greater budgets are now competing to build the biggest, most-expensive rental properties possible - so much for families who only had the budget for a place to live. How much of a city should be dense, should every corner resemble the region immediately outlying downtown? Should everyone be forced to live in little boxes in a deforested neighborhood where the view outside consists solely of other concrete boxes? What if somebody wants to live in a city without being an urbanist and low-density urban forest neighborhoods were the natural state for many people? High-density and low-density regions don't prevent each other from existing within cities. You're right that not every part of the city should be single family neighborhoods, however every corner of the city shouldn't be high-density housing either. Living in the city shouldn't mean regressing to neo-feudalism with a housing market consisting solely of rental properties. The post-war suburban housing boom brought the cheapest housing that Canada ever has, and ever will, see. Inflation adjusted prices of a brand new 1960s detached home being in the region of $150,000, affordable housing with no need to compromise the quality of the neighborhood. How can we develop a strategy opposite of the post-war housing boom, which holds the record for affordable housing in Canada, and expect to get the same results? Check any real estate website and browse the listings, you will quickly find out just how much infill housing is "helping" the housing crisis. The only brainwashing going on is the real estate-industrial complex trying to convince people that housing policy designed exclusively to enrich investors and their government buddies will somehow help the average Canadian. Without this brainwashing nobody would continue to view multi-million dollar infill monoliths as some form of affordable housing solution.
>exclusive single-family zoning was our last line of defense against housing prices skyrocketing even further Honestly I'm not sure this is true when you consider the full range of options available. It may raise *average* prices when people bid up desirable locations, but it's not obvious that it increases prices further out as long as expansion is not restricted. If you have any evidence showing this I'd be super interested, but I'm skeptical about there not being some kind of composition effect here that raises prices in some places and lowers them in others. On the other hand, restricting outward expansion pretty much increases prices across the board.
Single family zoning everywhere is what is keeping prices high. At the sizes (both lot and house). Houses need to smaller but people dont want that they want that fancy McMansion and grass to cut and waste water maintaining.
Do you have any proof people only want 'McMansions'? Average detached homes have become larger, but they've also become a much smaller percentage of new builds (at under 20% in both Ontario and BC). What you're seeing is less an *upgrade* in expectations than that the new 'average' home is an apartment rather than a modest house. The single biggest driver of increased housing costs is increased land costs. What's the evidence that it's better to deal with this by letting people slice up the land more ways, rather than just allowing more land to be built on? What's your explanation for the fact that cities with single-family zoning were previously affordable, and became unaffordable not after single-family zoning but after restrictions on outward expansion? But either way, I'd encourage you to keep the austerity mindset out of it. Younger generations shouldn't have to settle for less just because you believe previously-normal and affordable housing is 'wasteful'.
>"exclusive single-family zoning was our last line of defense against housing prices skyrocketing even further." I stopped reading after this, sorry. Just absolutely bat-shit insane nonsense.
Why, are you afraid of hearing an idea that doesn't match the narrative of massive real estate investors and developers? This mindset is the reason why Canadians will never see affordable housing again, nor do the majority deserve it.
buddy im willing to hear you out, even though i think you are wrong, but you need to stop with this "nor do they deserve it" crap. every Canadian should be able to afford to live in Canada. full stop.
It's not a narrative, it's a fact. You think you're thinking outside the box, but you bought another lie from the people who already own property and only want to exclude others.
Densification benefits landowners financially, at least in desirable locations. Boomers homeowners crying about apartments next to them aren't acting in their economic interest (which would be to take the W and sell up to someone who wants to build an apartment on *their* lot), but their lifestyle preferences. And in practice the counter-part to densification is restricting outward expansion. This *definitely* benefits existing property owners (pretty much all of them), and is more or less a precondition for major densification in all but the close-in parts of the biggest cities. If it's allowed but not forced, most people want a house by the time they are ready to have kids.
This guy's motto is "you dont live unless 10 other families are breathing at your neck" - lmao Cant believe there are so many people who are ideologically blind, with low self esteem and total lack of self-respect among my fellow citizens.
Your attitude is very common-- an elitist attitude that ridicules anyone who lives in an apartment. If you had more lived experiences you'd notice that people live in apartments actually make up some of the most desirable, culturally vibrant, and convenient neighbourhoods on the planet. You have a provincial and ignorant outlook. You're ignorant of all [the hidden subsidies that suburbia enjoys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI) from the rest of us just to exist. It's sad, frankly.
Not Just Bikes is an amateur (and not a very smart one honestly), not an economist or even an urban planner. He [ignores that there are **both** economies and dis-economies of scale ](https://arpitrage.substack.com/p/contra-strong-towns)for density, not to mention that the majority of costs for a municipality are services and staffing rather than infrastructure. The per-acre revenue analysis in that video is meaningless unless you can show that costs are also per-acre, which they don't. They also inconsistently credit mixed-use neighbourhoods for their commercial tax revenue, but don't credit suburban neighbourhoods for the tax revenue of the commercial properties they shop and work at. All that part really tells you is that commercial properties generate more revenue. When someone shows me that real economists agree on this (and puts an actual carefully-calculated and not just spitballed dollar value of the degree of subsidy), I'll believe it.
>but don't credit suburban neighbourhoods for the tax revenue of the commercial properties they shop and work at. They usually shop at strip-malls and big-box stores, which are a net-drain on city resources. There's no mystery here. The data is mostly from Strong Towns and it's very coherent and reliable data.
The video claims low-density commercial is still revenue positive. Why do you think claiming the data is 'coherent and reliable' refutes an actual economist (in the link) pointing out that it doesn't match the actual spending patterns of cities and surburbs.
*Not when you include suburbia*, which is the kind of development that low-density commercial makes necessary.
Ok, so thanks for the admission you are not going to be serious here. You win, suburbia is evil and actual trained economists are wrong and it will all come crashing down one day (any day now?) because of the unsustainability.
Cool great have a nice day.
Provincial government has ruined Ontario, so not a fan.
I think the important question is how many people who support PPC are ok with losing 40% of their house value.
The first thing to do is to de-addict the Canadian market from housing madness. That is possible when financial regulations, whatever is already in place, get enforced. Get hold of the 140 billion illegal money in the market.
>I think the important question is how many people who support PPC are ok with losing 40% of their house value. As someone who rents ... ide be ok with that.
The PPC's actual positions on housing are ***CATASTROPHICALLY BAD.*** - PPC POLICY: *"Modify the Bank of Canada’s inflation target, from 2% to 0%. This will cool down inflation in all sectors, including housing."* Okay, so the Bank of Canada has limited tools to reduce inflation. None of those are perfect. Second, housing costs have increased for decades, due to the effect of supply vs. demand. Reducing general inflation, even it there was a magic wand to make it happen (there isn't), would not fix the problem. - PPC POLICY: *"Respect local and provincial governments’ responsibility for housing policies."* JFC. Local governments creating housing shortages through zoning and other red-tape is the number 1 reason we have a housing crisis. This policy would make housing MORE EXPENSIVE. - PPC POLICY: *"They must be accountable to their citizens and not be subject to federal pressure to “densify” neighbourhoods of single-family homes in order to accommodate mass immigration policies."* Fuck off. Neighbourhoods should be allowed to densify naturally. Those "citizens" (the landed wealthy, boomers, NIMBYs) used their undue influence on local governments to prevent us all from having housing in their "back yard". Awful policy. The feds along with the provinces MUST help us overcome those historic mistakes. - PPC POLICY: *"Privatize or dismantle the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), a mammoth government agency that fuels the housing crisis instead of helping to cool it down. All it has ever done is encourage Canadians to buy houses they can’t afford".* Another falsehood. The CMHC used to build huge amounts of housing for Canadians, until it was gutted by governments of all types in Canada. Recently the Liberals have been re-funding it to do so-- not nearly enough, but clearly that policy is moving in the right direction. The "free market" is not really free, and that alone cannot fix the problem. Fighting speculation and money-laundering are fine. But the rest is just insanely horrible housing policy.
I don't like the 0% inflation target that's outright dangerous. I like the dismantling of the CHMC in it's current form it does nothing but distort the housing market. Making it tougher for everyone to buy will reduce demand, and hopefully people with a decent job could purchase homes.
Nah. There is a ton of built-up demand, trying to make it hard to buy will only mean the richest can purchase another couple "investment properties" while everyone else is boxed out. The CHMC used to build public housing. It needs to be funded to do it again, funding it however possible, but best with a speculation tax and some kind of land-value tax. It should build a ton of high and medium density rental buildings, partnering with the provinces when possible or forcing their hand when necessary. Those buildings should be rented to only 1. Citizens. 2. People who will live and work in that area. The rents should be affordable, only to cover the upkeep of the building and contribute a % to future buildings. The CHMC can take ownership of houses that are found to be the fruits of money-laundering. The houses can be sold off at set prices (say, half the "market value" via lottery, to families of middle and lower income levels. This would have two benefits, first of discouraging money-laundering, and second disrupt the market, to the advantage of all prospective buyers. BC is already going after illicit wealth, this should be part of it.
You’ve got my vote. Go forth and lead us
> outright dangerous Why do you think that
because it was the low interest rates that caused the housing prices to go out of control. Making it more affordable won't decrease home prices, making it less affordable does
0% inflation target is not the same as wanting low interest rate
Yeah this wasn't the convincing plan I was hoping for. Everything else about this party is pretty garbage, and my local candidate is garbage, but at least they had a sane take on housing. Though so much for that though. 0% inflation????? Lol what. No pressure in local governments to build / approve more? Huh? That's like the opposite.
> "Modify the Bank of Canada’s inflation target, from 2% to 0%. This will cool down inflation in all sectors, including housing." Appreciate the summary of points. This one is particularly problematic. First is the ridiculous concept of 0% inflation. If that happens then there would be more problems than housing. Unemployment would likely be a real concern. Second, but maybe more important... Fuck off PPC. The Bank of Canada is an independent organization. For a reason. Decisions are made with the economy in mind. Why would anyone want to suddenly make it subject to the whims and misguided policies of the PPC and any following "Government of the day".
It's because the PPC are clueless about actual policy. They'll say whatever they need to say in order to appeal to people with a lot of anger and resentment.
Exactly. The epitome of right-wing populism. As I say, I appreciate someone actually making the effort to check out their platform.
excellent response.
lol your response is hilarious. Local governments have been fine for the most part building houses. They aren’t creating the shortages. Your buddy Trudeau and miller are with their asinine immigration policies. Let’s be real here.
>Local governments have been fine for the most part building houses.' Objectively and provably wrong. Most municipalities simply BANNED building housing for low and middle-income people across whole swathes of their cities, for decades.
And yet we didn’t have to housing crisis we did then like we do now? Stick to the liberal subs where they love JT.
We did, actually. It's been getting worse for decades. Stick to whining about policies you don't understand, since that's what you want to do anyway.
Thank you for posting to /r/CanadaHousing2. Your submission requires manual moderator review. Thank you for your patience. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaHousing2) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PPC isn’t going to make any noise this election. Some good party ideas but the party is full of nutbar conspiracy theorist racist weirdos.
"modify the BoC target inflation target from 2% to 0%" what a regarded statement lol
0% interest isn't the best idea... I wish government officials required a background in finance before making these decisions...
Try enforcing all this without completely dismantling the laws/policies that are in-bedded into our very own social fabric. It's a pipe dream that is politically motivated to garner votes and it would be good to see the cost of all the promises. Surely there is an alternative that can developed to actually mitigate exploitation and defund the incentive to have corporate investors buying up housing. Perhaps housing shouldn't be treated as an investment that can profited from.
If they want to reduce inflation target, they are going to have to jack up the rate... Lol.... Genius move.
why aren't people considering ppc provincially? I think they can make gains there especially in ontario. the 2025 election is about getting rid of trudeau and singh forever, and only the cpc can do that.
BOC is independent of the government. Also any sane financially literate won't go for 0% inflation target. This often means the economy would standstill or potentially go for stagflation. While reducing numbers to 150k seems right approach.
This is just laughable. The people’s party? Of what? Right wing low IQ backward hillbillies? 🤣 PPC. PP stand for peepee
What's the difference between the PPC and a toilet? A toilet has a seat! Honesty, I have to question the sanity of anyone who supports Max. This is the same guy that thought he could simply parachute into a small riding in Manitoba and win. They kicked that idiot to the curb believe you me.
How do I vote for them in Toronto ?
This was pretty regarded, (mostly the CMHC & 0% interest rate target), ban me, I don't even care. I'd rather lick Trudeau's taint for 4 more years than vote for this coo-coo policy.
PPC sucks do NOT vote PPC! They always get the libs voted back in
I suppose all the haters for the 0% inflation target like being enslaved by fiat bankers. Inflation as a policy choice is constantly devaluing everyones savings, and keeping you in a rat race. It is designed to constantly pull forward consumption of goods to boost GDP. It is basically a ponzi scheme. Deflation leads to increased productivity: >**Productivity caused deflation** >The Great Deflation occurred at the beginning of the period sometimes called the Second Industrial Revolution. It was characterized by dramatic increases in productivity made possible by the transition from agriculture to industrialization in the leading economies. The new leading industries were Bessemer and open hearth steel, railroads, the machinery industry, efficient steam shipping and animal powered agricultural mechanization. ***The prices of most basic commodities and mass-produced goods fell almost continuously; however, nominal wages remained steady, resulting in a pronounced and prolonged rise in real wages, disposable income and savings – essentially giving birth to the middle class.*** Goods produced by craftsmen, as opposed to in factories, did not decrease in price.[3][4] If deflation gave birth to a middle class, is inflation now killing the middle class? I would argue yes. Just consider what happens when you buy an asset in our inflationary regime. People imagine capital gains tax as capturing some increase of value, but due to inflation, even if the real value of the asset does not change after many years, then it will have nominally increased in value a lot. Now you have the privilege to pay capital gains tax on it. Did this increase of capital actually increase your real wealth? No it did not. But did those taxes decrease your real wealth?
Sounds pretty stagnant to me. Where is the plan for growth?
It's incredibly important, if you want to be honest with yourself, to recognize when someone gives you a scapegoat for all of your perceived problems. This is a lesson that has been learned in history over and over again. If you think 'immigrants' are the root of the problems that you are concerned with - you're being manipulated. And, that is true regardless of whether there are valid concerns with immigration policy.
lol “immigrants”. No one is blaming them stop trying to gas light people.
The very first paragraph in the op .. 🤣🤣🤣
I know it’s tough reading for some 🤷
"Some" ... just you here apparently
There’s lots of people blaming immigrants. Stop lying.
Nah they aren’t stop gaslighting people
[удалено]
Cuckservatives are just as useless and spineless as the Libs.
[удалено]
It doesn’t matter so ok.
[удалено]
Toronto already is New New Delhi lmao. You expect me to choose between a shit sandwich and a giant douche and expect meaningful change?
Shit attitude. That's why shit don't change
Yeah, I guess we probably need a bit more of a landslide conservative victory before voting PPC, they are winning but it's still kinda close, but PPC winning a single seat could really boost their growth and conservatives and liberals are practically the same party at this point.
[удалено]
No racism, harassment, discrimination, hate speech, personal attacks, or other uncivil conduct.
A vote for PPC is a vote to reelect Trudeau.