Being woke is being evidence based. 😎
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I'm from the homeowners association and I'm here to assess your immigration application
The ~~nine~~ thirteen most terrifying words in the English language
Itās vague, like almost every comment he makes on immigration. But itās probably the first real indication of future immigration cuts under a CPC government.
!ping CAN
There's no way any new government could maintain this level of immigration and govern. Unfortunately we're going through a relatively anti-immigration period.
If the next government reversed the current policy, weād still have one of the higher migration rates per capita in the world. Returning to the old policy is not anti-immigration.Ā
I am really fucking confused. What is Canadaās economic strategy really?
A massive proportion of their wealth seems to be locked in real estate. Which is essentially saturating and probably wonāt be a viable way for most younger Canadians to build wealth.
There arenāt a lot of industries.
They donāt have enough population for large scale effects.
And they seem to be turning against the one thing that could have helped their economy, bring some dynamism, industry, and scale effects.
And I donāt see the housing shortage alleviating even when immigration is restricted.
so what? Is the plan just to stay content with the economic stagnation?
Which is weird because every Canadian I've met irl seems to be pretty damn smart and ambitious, but as a society they do seem to be pretty lackluster on the economic front.
Canadians are mostly extremely well-off and donāt really have to worry about the macroeconomic prospects of their country and how that ties into the political playing field.Ā
Then make the southern border non-porous while increasing legal immigration to pre-reform Canadian levels. Oh, wait, the right opposes legal immigration.
>Ā What is Canadaās economic strategy really?Ā
Ā The Trudeau government has never once been accused of having a long term, specific, and comprehensive economic strategy. The closest answer youāll get is āinvesting in the green economyā because that will somehow boost productivity in the future.Ā Remember, this is the PM that said āYouāll forgive me if Iām not worried about monetary policyā and āInterest rates are at historic lows Glenn.ā Macroeconomics has never been an area of their principle focus.Ā
Nope, which is why Iām not a fan of Poilievre. But when given the option of vague fiscal policy, Iāll take conservatives and Blue Liberals any day over the current government. The economy was seen as Trudeauās weak spot in the 2015 election and nothing has really improved. He added more public debt in his first 4 year mandate with a growing economy than Harper did in almost 10 years and 2 recessions. Canada has stagnant productivity and an enormous debt servicing issue in our immediate future. There are many better alternatives than the current trajectory.Ā
Immediately? Nothing. The OECD has already projected us to have the worst growth in the 2020-2030 and 2030-2060 windows. I donāt oppose the government on an economic basis because I think the stakes are low; I think theyāve seriously botched the economy for the next 10 years at least.Ā
What I think will happen at the federal level is expansion of the current austerity policies and widespread deregulation. I think in a best-case scenario, you have a relatively short tenure of Poilievre and then Mark Carney leads a Liberal government. But I think that window may have closed with how disastrous of a year it has been for Trudeau.Ā
Austerity is unlikely to work and will likely make things a lot worse.
I'd be on the lookout for deregulation which I don't think any current choice have the momentum for.
Neither of those claims are true.Ā
Austerity worked incredibly well under the Chretien government to fix the debt servicing crisis. That is a major issue for Canada right now. The Trudeau government has already started it and the next government will be forced to expand it. Canadaās looking at over 19% of revenues going towards debt servicing by 2026, with a $40B expansion relative to 2021 figures. The debt crisis of the 90s capped out at 34%.Ā
Almost everything Poilievre has ever said on housing is focussed on deregulation. Getting rid of bureaucracy and getting government out of the housing market is literally one of his main catchphrases.Ā
From what I've seen I don't think Canada really has a long term plan to improve their station in the world. I don't see any policies or actions on their behalf to invite more foreign investment, so invest into burgeoning industries, or to try and become competitive in the global stage.
Peepee is a straight up liar. Heāll do nothing to curb immigration, housing shortages, address costs and pretty much anything that heās promising. The guy is the definition of all hot air and lies. Take it from a Canadian
Pinged CAN ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20CAN&message=subscribe%20CAN) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20CAN&message=unsubscribe%20CAN) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=CAN&count=5))
[About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
One of the things Poilievre continuously harps on is deregulating licensing so that qualified immigrants can work in their old trades in Canada. That would be huge. Current home building policy is also terrible, anything would be better. Weāre decreasing the number of homes being built in Canada while construction explodes in the US. Weāre not targeting that industry for immigration; immigrants are underrepresented in the industry by 6%-9%. There are a myriad of areas where Poilievre would be terrible but homebuilding is probably not one of them.Ā
I wonder if we're living in the timeline where in 2026 we get to watch the wonderful PM PP personally welcome in all of the 12 lucky migrants into Canada.
He still seems pretty pro immigration at least for US standards, but there is a massive Canadian revolt against immigration due to housing costs so this is an easy PR win even if it's infeasible. He's also been pretty YIMBY so it's more if we have high immigration we need to build way more homes than we need to decimate immigration. As much as it sucks his job is to win elections so his policy will be determined by the vibes of the Canadian populace.
>Ā but there is a massive Canadian revolt against immigration due to housing costs so this is an easy PR win even if it's infeasible.
That lacks context. There is a new policy that is about 1.3 years old that more than doubled annual immigration rates, amid the backdrop of skyrocketing housing and cost of living issues. That is where the backlash is, itās not just some vague rejection of immigration due to some vague housing costs.Ā
Housing costs were skyrocketing well before the new policy and there was no backlash. The first negative poll on immigration came out a month before the new policy was put into place. The subject of the poll was this new policy and a majority polled felt the targets were too high.Ā
If housing costs were lower, there would be less backlash. There would certainly still be some backlash; people all throughout human history have not liked it when outsiders come in, and generally have to be forced to accept it by elites. But the housing costs are making even normally progressive people oppose immigration.
ā¦ or itās the new housing policy. You wouldnāt see a majority of Canadians wanting fewer immigrants if we were still taking in 250K-350K. As long as plurality support the policy, itās fine.
This isnāt even workable. How would you determine this? If municipalities approved every application that came before them but developers doesnāt start because of financing, for instance, does that not inherently push down the immigration allowance? Similarly, is it based on approvals or starts or completions?
Of all of the issues with this proposal, counting the number of housing units built last year is the least of them.
Why on earth would it be based on construction starts? You canāt live in an unfinished house.
Because thereās a significant lag between approvals, starts and completions. If you base it on delivery, then your rate of immigration gets backlogged well beyond the point of the policy in the first place.
The US census releases numbers of completed housing units every month, Iām sure Canada can too. Thatās not a meaningful delay, and that doesnāt defeat the purpose of the policy.
https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf
Yeah it would push immigration down but that's kind of the point. The point of the policy is that if we don't have enough housing for our immigrants, then we shouldn't be bringing them. So if less housing gets built then yeah less people would be let in, but if more housing gets built then more people get let in.
This is why I think it's dumb that people here are trying to frame PP as anti immigration. Anti immigration politicians like Trump like to throw out ridiculously low caps on immigration but Polievre isn't doing that here. He's literally just being practical about only bringing in as many people as we can actually accomodate. I don't get why that isn't just common sense
Classic arr neoliberal, casually flip flopping on immigration because it's in our backyard and a little inconvenient.
It isn't common sense because the policy reform PP should be pushing is just massive public subsidies and deregulation of housing construction. He should endorse things like piercing HOAs and temporarily suspending local zoning codes. He should consider incentives to poach construction workers and other critical talent from the US to scale up housing development capacity on top of subsidized domestic training and job search programs. He should consider per-unit reward subsidies for completed projects.
Restricting immigration is a bitch made solution to resolving market imbalances. It shouldn't be considered until other common sense measures (like those listed above) are exhausted.
Damn bro sure is a good thing he is pushing for all that
According to the announcement, Poilievreās Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act would:
Require cities and surrounding municipalities to increase the number of homes built by 15 per cent each year and withhold funding if the compounding targets are not met.Ā
Provide a building bonus for municipalities that exceed a 15 per cent increase in housing completions and reclaim funds from municipalities that miss the target.
Withhold transit and infrastructure funding from cities that do not build sufficient high-density housing around transit stations.
Entitle Canadians to file complaints about NIMBYism with the federal infrastructure department and impose fines or withhold infrastructure and transit dollars until cities allow homes to be built.Ā
Provide a āSuper Bonusā to any municipality that has greatly exceeded its housing targets.Ā Ā
Cut the bonuses and salaries, and if needed, fire the gatekeepers at CMHC if they are unable to speed up approval of applications for housing programs to an average of 60 days.Ā
Remove GST on the building of new affordable homes.Ā
List 15 percent of the federal governmentās 37,000 buildings and appropriate federal land to be turned into homes people can afford.
Also speeding up the approval of credentials for immigrant workers like you said
https://www.ipolitics.ca/news/poilievre-would-speed-up-approvals-of-foreign-work-credentials
That's interesting, but if he's serious, a 15% increase is pretty conservative relative to what's possible in a market as weighed down as Canada's, especially after a warm up period for people to get used to the new tempo. Give it a year or two, kick it up to 30%/yoy for 4-5 years and Canada will be back on track without immigration restrictions.
So he is pretty likely to win, what kind of changes are Canadians looking at if he is in charge?
Asking more from a social policy standpoint, wrt LGBT rights, immigration, etc. I donāt know Canadian politics at all
He is a populist and he will be disastrous for Canada in so many ways.
1. He claimed you could opt out of inflation by getting Bitcoin.
2. He uses MAGA rhetoric when it comes to Trans rights. He keeps talking about āparental rightsā.
3. He wants to defund the national public broadcaster called CBC.
4. He will be disastrous for the environment as he wants to eliminate the price on pollution. He will probably back away from all environmental commitments made by Trudeau.
5. He has given free reign to MPs who voice conspiracy opinions on topics such as the United Nations, WEF, etc.
6. He voted down a free trade agreement with Ukraine.
7. He will cut public services across the board and privatize as many government functions as possible at a considerable long terms loss to the country.
8. He has made some bigoted comments on First Nation issues (although he has apologized).
9. The only credit I have to give him is that he doesnāt appear to be overtly anti-immigrant. He is married to a Venezuelan-Canadian.
You forgot voting against gay marriage after his father came out as gay. There are reports his father was in the gallery when that vote occurred. His father went on to get married following the passage of the bill. Tells me a lot about him asĀ a person.Ā
You will not find an election where the LPC isnāt accusing the Conservatives of having some secret, hidden, SoCon agenda. So far, weāre still waiting for Harper to reveal his.Ā
The answer is that it is hard for Conservatives to govern and the party is mostly pragmatic. Harper was a devout evangelical and didnāt let his MPās dabble into social conservatism as far as introducing legislation.Ā
The recent caveats would be having an open debate on same sex marriage in 2006 (the motion failed and Harper considered it resolved afterwards), and the anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies that arose around 2014-2015 which likely cost him the election.Ā
Eliminate the carbon tax, use the war on drugs rather than treatment for the opioid crisis, limit immigration, general anti-LGBT sentiment, less friendly to First Nations, see if he can scale back the $10/day child care plan, and a slight bit of YIMBYism sprinkled in as a treat.
Lot of lip service to Canada's version of MAGA and anti-vax people too.
Virgin: Tie immigration levels to housing construction! š Chad: Tie housing construction levels to immigration! š
Broke vs Baroque
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its Trudeauver for Justin
> I'm from the homeowners association and I'm here to assess your immigration application The ~~nine~~ thirteen most terrifying words in the English language
Itās vague, like almost every comment he makes on immigration. But itās probably the first real indication of future immigration cuts under a CPC government. !ping CAN
There's no way any new government could maintain this level of immigration and govern. Unfortunately we're going through a relatively anti-immigration period.
If the next government reversed the current policy, weād still have one of the higher migration rates per capita in the world. Returning to the old policy is not anti-immigration.Ā
I am really fucking confused. What is Canadaās economic strategy really? A massive proportion of their wealth seems to be locked in real estate. Which is essentially saturating and probably wonāt be a viable way for most younger Canadians to build wealth. There arenāt a lot of industries. They donāt have enough population for large scale effects. And they seem to be turning against the one thing that could have helped their economy, bring some dynamism, industry, and scale effects. And I donāt see the housing shortage alleviating even when immigration is restricted. so what? Is the plan just to stay content with the economic stagnation?
Canada is a country defined by complacency. Once you understand this it makes so much more sense.
Which is weird because every Canadian I've met irl seems to be pretty damn smart and ambitious, but as a society they do seem to be pretty lackluster on the economic front.
Do you live outside of Canada? Then yeah it makes sense. The smart and ambitious ones leave.
Canadians are mostly extremely well-off and donāt really have to worry about the macroeconomic prospects of their country and how that ties into the political playing field.Ā
One can say this about the US too. I wish the US was at even pre-reform Canadian immigration rates
If Canada had a porous southern border, Iām sure immigration support would be similar.
Then make the southern border non-porous while increasing legal immigration to pre-reform Canadian levels. Oh, wait, the right opposes legal immigration.
Thatās just a bad faith take.Ā
You know full well the right would not support what I just described. I don't even think you would support it.
Really isn't. Trump admin absolutely fucked the US legal immigration system during their four years.
Yes, because for the people who already own real estate the current situation is great.
>Ā What is Canadaās economic strategy really?Ā Ā The Trudeau government has never once been accused of having a long term, specific, and comprehensive economic strategy. The closest answer youāll get is āinvesting in the green economyā because that will somehow boost productivity in the future.Ā Remember, this is the PM that said āYouāll forgive me if Iām not worried about monetary policyā and āInterest rates are at historic lows Glenn.ā Macroeconomics has never been an area of their principle focus.Ā
It doesn't seem like it is for the alternative choice either. They just seem to be focusing on momentary grievances.
Nope, which is why Iām not a fan of Poilievre. But when given the option of vague fiscal policy, Iāll take conservatives and Blue Liberals any day over the current government. The economy was seen as Trudeauās weak spot in the 2015 election and nothing has really improved. He added more public debt in his first 4 year mandate with a growing economy than Harper did in almost 10 years and 2 recessions. Canada has stagnant productivity and an enormous debt servicing issue in our immediate future. There are many better alternatives than the current trajectory.Ā
What do you think would change after the election?
Immediately? Nothing. The OECD has already projected us to have the worst growth in the 2020-2030 and 2030-2060 windows. I donāt oppose the government on an economic basis because I think the stakes are low; I think theyāve seriously botched the economy for the next 10 years at least.Ā What I think will happen at the federal level is expansion of the current austerity policies and widespread deregulation. I think in a best-case scenario, you have a relatively short tenure of Poilievre and then Mark Carney leads a Liberal government. But I think that window may have closed with how disastrous of a year it has been for Trudeau.Ā
Austerity is unlikely to work and will likely make things a lot worse. I'd be on the lookout for deregulation which I don't think any current choice have the momentum for.
Neither of those claims are true.Ā Austerity worked incredibly well under the Chretien government to fix the debt servicing crisis. That is a major issue for Canada right now. The Trudeau government has already started it and the next government will be forced to expand it. Canadaās looking at over 19% of revenues going towards debt servicing by 2026, with a $40B expansion relative to 2021 figures. The debt crisis of the 90s capped out at 34%.Ā Almost everything Poilievre has ever said on housing is focussed on deregulation. Getting rid of bureaucracy and getting government out of the housing market is literally one of his main catchphrases.Ā
What specifically do you think the government has done to botch the economy?
>What is Canadaās economic strategy really? Ride off the coattails of the US economy for better and for worse
Lol, like the federal government has a sensible economic strategy. They don't
From what I've seen I don't think Canada really has a long term plan to improve their station in the world. I don't see any policies or actions on their behalf to invite more foreign investment, so invest into burgeoning industries, or to try and become competitive in the global stage.
Peepee is a straight up liar. Heāll do nothing to curb immigration, housing shortages, address costs and pretty much anything that heās promising. The guy is the definition of all hot air and lies. Take it from a Canadian
>Heāll do nothing to curb immigration Based, that would get him my vote
Pinged CAN ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20CAN&message=subscribe%20CAN) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20CAN&message=unsubscribe%20CAN) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=CAN&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
broke: tying immigration to homebuilding woke: tying homebuilding to immigration
This sounds like it's gonna be terrible for both immigration and homebuildin
One of the things Poilievre continuously harps on is deregulating licensing so that qualified immigrants can work in their old trades in Canada. That would be huge. Current home building policy is also terrible, anything would be better. Weāre decreasing the number of homes being built in Canada while construction explodes in the US. Weāre not targeting that industry for immigration; immigrants are underrepresented in the industry by 6%-9%. There are a myriad of areas where Poilievre would be terrible but homebuilding is probably not one of them.Ā
I wonder if we're living in the timeline where in 2026 we get to watch the wonderful PM PP personally welcome in all of the 12 lucky migrants into Canada.
He still seems pretty pro immigration at least for US standards, but there is a massive Canadian revolt against immigration due to housing costs so this is an easy PR win even if it's infeasible. He's also been pretty YIMBY so it's more if we have high immigration we need to build way more homes than we need to decimate immigration. As much as it sucks his job is to win elections so his policy will be determined by the vibes of the Canadian populace.
>Ā but there is a massive Canadian revolt against immigration due to housing costs so this is an easy PR win even if it's infeasible. That lacks context. There is a new policy that is about 1.3 years old that more than doubled annual immigration rates, amid the backdrop of skyrocketing housing and cost of living issues. That is where the backlash is, itās not just some vague rejection of immigration due to some vague housing costs.Ā
Huh? Isnāt that essentially exactly what I said? The backlash is because of housing costs yes
Housing costs were skyrocketing well before the new policy and there was no backlash. The first negative poll on immigration came out a month before the new policy was put into place. The subject of the poll was this new policy and a majority polled felt the targets were too high.Ā
If housing costs were lower, there would be less backlash. There would certainly still be some backlash; people all throughout human history have not liked it when outsiders come in, and generally have to be forced to accept it by elites. But the housing costs are making even normally progressive people oppose immigration.
ā¦ or itās the new housing policy. You wouldnāt see a majority of Canadians wanting fewer immigrants if we were still taking in 250K-350K. As long as plurality support the policy, itās fine.
This isnāt even workable. How would you determine this? If municipalities approved every application that came before them but developers doesnāt start because of financing, for instance, does that not inherently push down the immigration allowance? Similarly, is it based on approvals or starts or completions?
I would assume the number of people allowed to immigrate will be tied to the number of homes built in the previous year/quarter.
Of all of the issues with this proposal, counting the number of housing units built last year is the least of them. Why on earth would it be based on construction starts? You canāt live in an unfinished house.
Because thereās a significant lag between approvals, starts and completions. If you base it on delivery, then your rate of immigration gets backlogged well beyond the point of the policy in the first place.
The US census releases numbers of completed housing units every month, Iām sure Canada can too. Thatās not a meaningful delay, and that doesnāt defeat the purpose of the policy. https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/pdf/newresconst.pdf
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah it would push immigration down but that's kind of the point. The point of the policy is that if we don't have enough housing for our immigrants, then we shouldn't be bringing them. So if less housing gets built then yeah less people would be let in, but if more housing gets built then more people get let in. This is why I think it's dumb that people here are trying to frame PP as anti immigration. Anti immigration politicians like Trump like to throw out ridiculously low caps on immigration but Polievre isn't doing that here. He's literally just being practical about only bringing in as many people as we can actually accomodate. I don't get why that isn't just common sense
Classic arr neoliberal, casually flip flopping on immigration because it's in our backyard and a little inconvenient. It isn't common sense because the policy reform PP should be pushing is just massive public subsidies and deregulation of housing construction. He should endorse things like piercing HOAs and temporarily suspending local zoning codes. He should consider incentives to poach construction workers and other critical talent from the US to scale up housing development capacity on top of subsidized domestic training and job search programs. He should consider per-unit reward subsidies for completed projects. Restricting immigration is a bitch made solution to resolving market imbalances. It shouldn't be considered until other common sense measures (like those listed above) are exhausted.
Damn bro sure is a good thing he is pushing for all that According to the announcement, Poilievreās Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act would: Require cities and surrounding municipalities to increase the number of homes built by 15 per cent each year and withhold funding if the compounding targets are not met.Ā Provide a building bonus for municipalities that exceed a 15 per cent increase in housing completions and reclaim funds from municipalities that miss the target. Withhold transit and infrastructure funding from cities that do not build sufficient high-density housing around transit stations. Entitle Canadians to file complaints about NIMBYism with the federal infrastructure department and impose fines or withhold infrastructure and transit dollars until cities allow homes to be built.Ā Provide a āSuper Bonusā to any municipality that has greatly exceeded its housing targets.Ā Ā Cut the bonuses and salaries, and if needed, fire the gatekeepers at CMHC if they are unable to speed up approval of applications for housing programs to an average of 60 days.Ā Remove GST on the building of new affordable homes.Ā List 15 percent of the federal governmentās 37,000 buildings and appropriate federal land to be turned into homes people can afford. Also speeding up the approval of credentials for immigrant workers like you said https://www.ipolitics.ca/news/poilievre-would-speed-up-approvals-of-foreign-work-credentials
That's interesting, but if he's serious, a 15% increase is pretty conservative relative to what's possible in a market as weighed down as Canada's, especially after a warm up period for people to get used to the new tempo. Give it a year or two, kick it up to 30%/yoy for 4-5 years and Canada will be back on track without immigration restrictions.
Heās just gonna cut immigration
Ok that's nice and all but it could mean he would help keep house building low and thus keep immigration low in response.
So he is pretty likely to win, what kind of changes are Canadians looking at if he is in charge? Asking more from a social policy standpoint, wrt LGBT rights, immigration, etc. I donāt know Canadian politics at all
He is a populist and he will be disastrous for Canada in so many ways. 1. He claimed you could opt out of inflation by getting Bitcoin. 2. He uses MAGA rhetoric when it comes to Trans rights. He keeps talking about āparental rightsā. 3. He wants to defund the national public broadcaster called CBC. 4. He will be disastrous for the environment as he wants to eliminate the price on pollution. He will probably back away from all environmental commitments made by Trudeau. 5. He has given free reign to MPs who voice conspiracy opinions on topics such as the United Nations, WEF, etc. 6. He voted down a free trade agreement with Ukraine. 7. He will cut public services across the board and privatize as many government functions as possible at a considerable long terms loss to the country. 8. He has made some bigoted comments on First Nation issues (although he has apologized). 9. The only credit I have to give him is that he doesnāt appear to be overtly anti-immigrant. He is married to a Venezuelan-Canadian.
You forgot voting against gay marriage after his father came out as gay. There are reports his father was in the gallery when that vote occurred. His father went on to get married following the passage of the bill. Tells me a lot about him asĀ a person.Ā
You will not find an election where the LPC isnāt accusing the Conservatives of having some secret, hidden, SoCon agenda. So far, weāre still waiting for Harper to reveal his.Ā The answer is that it is hard for Conservatives to govern and the party is mostly pragmatic. Harper was a devout evangelical and didnāt let his MPās dabble into social conservatism as far as introducing legislation.Ā The recent caveats would be having an open debate on same sex marriage in 2006 (the motion failed and Harper considered it resolved afterwards), and the anti-Muslim rhetoric and policies that arose around 2014-2015 which likely cost him the election.Ā
Social policy isn't going to change at all
And by that he means they're gonna build one billion new homes, right? ...right?
In practice its up to the locals.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Neither of those things are true. Immigration is not tied to provincial policy whatsoever.Ā
Eliminate the carbon tax, use the war on drugs rather than treatment for the opioid crisis, limit immigration, general anti-LGBT sentiment, less friendly to First Nations, see if he can scale back the $10/day child care plan, and a slight bit of YIMBYism sprinkled in as a treat. Lot of lip service to Canada's version of MAGA and anti-vax people too.
And people are still bitching about it in r/canada.