Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Make Canada Boring Again]

If anybody cares, I've been having all sorts of computer problems.

I said a couple months or so ago that Trudeau should apologize for not focusing on issues the public considered of primary importance and should do three things:

1.Promise to suspend planned increases in the carbon tax until inflation had returned to normal levels.

2.Promise to reduce the deficit to 'small' levels.

3.Reduce immigration and such to population increases that are sustainable.

I think they've acted on all three of these but without the apology the public hasn't really paid attention, especially on the $15 billion reduction in spending. I'm not sure what they've done with reducing the population increases, but I think they've made a couple moves in that direction, and they've made a complete hash of the carbon tax changes.

Agreed but he strikes me as very stubborn and not willing to admit he is wrong.  A big reason Ford despite all his mess ups and being very buffoonish has done as well as he has is he willing to admit he was wrong.  People like politicians who admit mistakes but Trudeau just doesn't strike me as that type.  Maybe biased but he comes across as someone who thinks he is smartest person in room and I have heard even others who know him say same thing.

I think you're spot on here. Trudeau's main problem is that he is unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances - he is very set in his own ways. That results in him often refusing to admit mistakes or being unwilling to change his approach even if it is necessary to do so.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

Another question is short of a blue wave in Quebec, do people think Tory vote has hit ceiling?  Liberals have not hit floor as possible NDP pulls ahead of them, but I tend to think Tories are at ceiling and can only climb higher if there is a blue wave in Quebec and usually Quebec tends to have big swings during the campaign not before.

Other question, is are Liberals toast or do they have a path back?  Obviously anything is possible in politics and likewise they are obviously underdogs, but I mean barring some extreme surprise is there any realistic chance of them winning?

My view is if Trudeau stays on, chances of beating Tories in seats is very slim but could deny them a majority and maybe much like Sanchez did in Spain stay on by getting and NDP and perhaps BQ support.  But a Trudeau led Liberal party winning most seats let alone a majority seems far fetched.

Now if change leaders it is a higher risk/higher reward.  With a new leader, I absolutely think Liberals can come back and win.  But at same time chances of them falling to third place are also much higher too.  Trudeau has a core base that loves him thus why if you are one who thinks Liberals are going to lose, at least with Trudeau you can form opposition.  But due to baggage, a lot really don't like him, meaning he has a very low ceiling in vote potential.  By contrast Canada has not taken a sharp turn right.  Canada is still broadly a centrist to slightly left of centre country meaning many out there who want Trudeau gone but don't want a big shift right and a new leader might be able to win those back.

Some on right are giddy about this being the big shift right they have always hoped for.  I don't think Poilievre will shift country dramatically to right like Thatcher did in UK or Reagan in US.  Either he will take incrementalist approach like Harper, more populist like Ford or maybe hardline like Harris but gets tossed after one or two terms and Liberals or NDP undo all the changes and party spends a decade or two in the wilderness.  Reagan and Thatcher pulled country rightward as both Labour and Democrats moved to centre and abandoned any idea of going back to way things were before and few like Corbyn who tried to lost badly.  By contrast Harris moved Ontario to right, but OLP over 15 years in power largely undid most of his legacy but gradually.  If like Harper, only moves country right if in power for a very long time and I think nowadays people fatigue of governments a lot faster than in past so chance of Tories lasting over 10 years seems slim.  I actually think we may be entering age where 8 years is maximum shelf life of government.  If like Ford, he will back off more right wing ideas when public backlash to try and stay liked.  However, I think Ford wants to be liked whereas I don't think Poilievre cares if he is hated by large portion of population so he will likely either be like Harris or Harper.  

So question is, have Tories hit ceiling or can they go even higher and how high?

Do Liberals have path back to power both with and without Trudeau?

And will a Poilievre win mean big shift right or will Canada largely remain politically like it is now or even see a left wing backlash?

I think Poilievre will be slightly more like Doug Ford when governing - by that I mean he will be a mix of moderate economic policies (largely in response to public backlash) and moving the country to the economic right. Ford also wanted to slash the size of government when campaigning, but he immediately moderated that stance when he came to power. However, that doesn't mean Ford hasn't moved Ontario to the right on some issues - particularly on healthcare where he has allowed more private healthcare facilities.

With that said, I hope Poilievre keeps true to his promise of reducing government spending and keeping it under control rather than the mistakes Doug Ford has made, namely running increasing deficits during the first two years of his government.

If Poilievre ends up being 'too right-wing' however, I think there is a risk of a left-wing backlash from the Canadian equivalent of Bernie Sanders-type people, mainly in the NDP. However, I'm not sure such a movement will be that successful - the Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn types have flopped very hard in other English-speaking countries and I don't think Canada would be any different.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

Another question is short of a blue wave in Quebec, do people think Tory vote has hit ceiling?  Liberals have not hit floor as possible NDP pulls ahead of them, but I tend to think Tories are at ceiling and can only climb higher if there is a blue wave in Quebec and usually Quebec tends to have big swings during the campaign not before.

Other question, is are Liberals toast or do they have a path back?  Obviously anything is possible in politics and likewise they are obviously underdogs, but I mean barring some extreme surprise is there any realistic chance of them winning?

My view is if Trudeau stays on, chances of beating Tories in seats is very slim but could deny them a majority and maybe much like Sanchez did in Spain stay on by getting and NDP and perhaps BQ support.  But a Trudeau led Liberal party winning most seats let alone a majority seems far fetched.

Now if change leaders it is a higher risk/higher reward.  With a new leader, I absolutely think Liberals can come back and win.  But at same time chances of them falling to third place are also much higher too.  Trudeau has a core base that loves him thus why if you are one who thinks Liberals are going to lose, at least with Trudeau you can form opposition.  But due to baggage, a lot really don't like him, meaning he has a very low ceiling in vote potential.  By contrast Canada has not taken a sharp turn right.  Canada is still broadly a centrist to slightly left of centre country meaning many out there who want Trudeau gone but don't want a big shift right and a new leader might be able to win those back.

Some on right are giddy about this being the big shift right they have always hoped for.  I don't think Poilievre will shift country dramatically to right like Thatcher did in UK or Reagan in US.  Either he will take incrementalist approach like Harper, more populist like Ford or maybe hardline like Harris but gets tossed after one or two terms and Liberals or NDP undo all the changes and party spends a decade or two in the wilderness.  Reagan and Thatcher pulled country rightward as both Labour and Democrats moved to centre and abandoned any idea of going back to way things were before and few like Corbyn who tried to lost badly.  By contrast Harris moved Ontario to right, but OLP over 15 years in power largely undid most of his legacy but gradually.  If like Harper, only moves country right if in power for a very long time and I think nowadays people fatigue of governments a lot faster than in past so chance of Tories lasting over 10 years seems slim.  I actually think we may be entering age where 8 years is maximum shelf life of government.  If like Ford, he will back off more right wing ideas when public backlash to try and stay liked.  However, I think Ford wants to be liked whereas I don't think Poilievre cares if he is hated by large portion of population so he will likely either be like Harris or Harper.  

So question is, have Tories hit ceiling or can they go even higher and how high?

Do Liberals have path back to power both with and without Trudeau?

And will a Poilievre win mean big shift right or will Canada largely remain politically like it is now or even see a left wing backlash?

I think Poilievre will be slightly more like Doug Ford when governing - by that I mean he will be a mix of moderate economic policies (largely in response to public backlash) and moving the country to the economic right. Ford also wanted to slash the size of government when campaigning, but he immediately moderated that stance when he came to power. However, that doesn't mean Ford hasn't moved Ontario to the right on some issues - particularly on healthcare where he has allowed more private healthcare facilities.

With that said, I hope Poilievre keeps true to his promise of reducing government spending and keeping it under control rather than the mistakes Doug Ford has made, namely running increasing deficits during the first two years of his government.

If Poilievre ends up being 'too right-wing' however, I think there is a risk of a left-wing backlash from the Canadian equivalent of Bernie Sanders-type people, mainly in the NDP. However, I'm not sure such a movement will be that successful - the Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn types have flopped very hard in other English-speaking countries and I don't think Canada would be any different.

US is more skeptical of socialism than Canada so while not sure if Bernie Sanders could win here, he would definitely have better chance than in US. Corbyn agreed although if he faced Truss who knows what would have happened.  Johnson was big on spending and avoided austerity.  He was more a populist than traditional small government type.

This is a little bit complicated because many factors go into this. Support for socialism as an idea is one thing but it's also important to look at specific policies.

US is slightly more sceptical of 'socialism' than Canadians, but it's not a very large difference (36% support for socialism in the US while 42% support for socialism in Canada - although note, how socialism is defined is also relevant. A lot of Canadians/Americans think socialism = universal healthcare, but Canada already has that, so it wouldn't make that much of a difference in terms of voting preferences here as much as it does in the US).

However, Canada is also a lot more pro oil and pro fossil fuel energy than the US, with support for projects like the Keystone XL pipeline being bipartisan (supported by CPC+LPC here), while being opposed by Democrats in the US. One of Bernie Sanders' signature policies was to dismantle the fossil fuel industry and I don't think that would be popular here.

Canadians are also more supportive of free trade (or at least liberalized trade) agreements like NAFTA and TPP than Americans are, and Sanders was very opposed to free trade as well.

There are many factors and policies that go into whether someone with Sanders' economic views would be popular in a country. With that said, I think someone like Sanders is very unlikely to get elected in Canada.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

Pierre Poilievre didn't side with India on the matter, he said that Trudeau needs to present evidence the Indian gov't was tied to the killing (granted, evidence is hard to produce because Trudeau obtained the information from intel, but such a serious public accusation still generally needs evidence).

Why is the NDP siding with the Hamas when Hamas has killed Canadian citizens and taken them hostage? Maybe Jagmeet Singh is the 'treasonous' one.

The NDP's leader (then called the CCF) literally opposed going to war with Nazi Germany in September 1939. They as a party have no moral right to lecture anyone on treason.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

Their leader in 1939 was a pacifist.

He had a massive stroke the next year, after which the CCF mostly strongly supported the war effort.

I'm aware. The NDP still generally has no moral right to lecture anyone on treason. They have taken positions much more detrimental to Canada's geopolitical interests and security than CPC and Poilievre re:India.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

1 in 7 NDP voters would vote for Trump if in US.  

Who are these people? I know one, personally - my step grandmother in law. She's a Serbian immigrant. Thinks the NDP are the party of the working people, but likes Trumps anti-war stance. I get the impression this is not an uncommon view among Eastern Europeans.

Yea. A lot of Canadians have relatively random political preferences - people are not as strongly partisan as in the US. People might agree with Conservatives on social issues but NDP on economics/fp, and so on.

This dynamic also exists in the US, but I feel like people with this type of political persuasion in the US tend to cling more to one party than Canadians do.

So someone with those kind of views might gravitate more to Trump and the GOP in the US while 'shopping around' with different parties in Canada.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The pharmacare plan that has been introduced in Parliament is likely going offload costs to the provinces that they cannot currently afford because they spent the last few years spending money on mitigating COVID. Not to mention that our population growth levels are currently unsustainable, so it will be difficult to measure how much money will be needed to cover everyone. I oppose any new social programs until we get back to reasonable immigration levels and we can be fiscally responsible about it.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The pharmacare plan that has been introduced in Parliament is likely going offload costs to the provinces that they cannot currently afford because they spent the last few years spending money on mitigating COVID. Not to mention that our population growth levels are currently unsustainable, so it will be difficult to measure how much money will be needed to cover everyone. I oppose any new social programs until we get back to reasonable immigration levels and we can be fiscally responsible about it.

Pharmacare coverage may reduce health-care costs: https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/free-prescription-drugs-could-reduce-overall-health-care-costs-in-canada-study-1.6418350

But regardless, it should be covered because it's the right thing to do. If my insulin wasn't covered by my employer, this would be a Godsend. I shouldn't be punished because I got the short end of the stick in the genetic lottery.

Typically, what most research says about pharmacare and what our Parliamentary Budget Officer has concluded is that overall, pharmacare would save money for the economy because there would be less private spending - however, the cost for the government would increase, since the government would be covering prescription drugs. Also, the PBO assumes there would be co-pays in a pharmacare program to raise revenue - I don't think the Liberals and NDP have discussed co-pays as of yet in the current pharmacare legislation (correct me if I'm wrong)?

Anyway, universal pharmacare is fine, I'm not opposed to government health insurance covering prescription drugs - but it's going to be very hard to accurately estimate the costs for this program with nearly 3% population growth annually and with cash-strapped provinces after the COVID-19 crisis. A lot of provinces seem sceptical of the plan for now, mainly because they seem anxious about whether or not they will be able to properly fund it. Health Minister Mark Holland has even said;

'the cost is likely to be in the realm of $1.5 billion, but he said that estimate is very likely to change over the course of his talks with provinces'.

So it seems like it will be $1.5 billion, but we don't know how much the provinces will cover and how much the feds will. This is only the first phase of implementing pharmacare - the PBO's estimates for how much a pharmacare program that covers all drugs are much higher, especially in the long term.

It looks like if this is implemented now, it is undoubtedly going to cause some issues with the implementation. It is similar to how the population growth, the doctor shortages (which are a result of provinces limiting medical school graduates), and the cash-strappedness of the provinces are making wait times in our healthcare system worse. Provinces like Ontario are even allowing pharmacists to provide prescriptions for some medications because of the doctor shortage - will people be able to see a doctor (without having to wait a ridiculous wait time) before getting a prescription covered by the pharmacare program?

If the government wants to expand the welfare state now, then it should also fix other underlying issues like doctor shortages, the fiscal situation in the country, the high levels of immigration etc. I'll also be fair and say these issues aren't all the federal government's fault - some of these issues like the lack of doctors is something that would, in part, require policy change at the provincial level. But the policy change still has to take place first.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

I used to be skeptical of replacing Trudeau as some kind of Liberal panacea, but now I'm starting to think it's the only choice they have. Governments rarely come back from this depth of unpopularity, but when they do, they do it with a new leader. There's maybe the argument of letting Trudeau be his own sacrificial lamb (in the same way Wynne was in 2018), but I remember how pessimistic Liberals were in Wynne's final term, and they haven't reached that level of hopelessness yet. So it might be worth it to throw something at the wall and hope it sticks.

IMO, Trudeau/whoever is the next Liberal leader (if they pick a new one) will have to address the elephant in the room - which is his immigration policy. This is the main reason he is unpopular now, but this is heavily downplayed in nearly all levels of political discourse in Canada.

One can argue that it's not solely the immigration policy itself but many of the effects of the policy (eg. the rise in the cost of living, particularly housing prices) but all of this goes together because the primary detrimental effects of his immigration policy on the Canadian public have been macroeconomic, up until now.

Trudeau took an immigration system that was previously orderly, widely recognized as successful, based on taking in high-skilled workers via the points system, was historically broadly popular with Canadians and turned it into a scammy, messy, unethical scheme of exploiting cheap labour and reducing our living standards. Of course he would be unpopular because of that, and the fact that he has done nothing to alleviate the cost of living/housing crisis makes it ten times worse. Not to mention, he also basically told everyone that you're not allowed to question his wisdom at all while he was making these severely detrimental changes. It feels almost like he destroyed our previous immigration system for progressive virtue-signalling political points and to move the overton window.

Going forward the Liberals will have to address what they will do to fix this or they have zero chance of getting re-elected in 2025 (and maybe even in the elections afterwards), even if they pick a new leader and somehow manage to rebrand themselves. I think even if they make any meaningful proposals to fix this, they might not recover their previous support, so maybe they might feel that it's better for them politically to keep the current failed policy to 'move the overton window' on immigration and then make the next government have to fix the current mess.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

I used to be skeptical of replacing Trudeau as some kind of Liberal panacea, but now I'm starting to think it's the only choice they have. Governments rarely come back from this depth of unpopularity, but when they do, they do it with a new leader. There's maybe the argument of letting Trudeau be his own sacrificial lamb (in the same way Wynne was in 2018), but I remember how pessimistic Liberals were in Wynne's final term, and they haven't reached that level of hopelessness yet. So it might be worth it to throw something at the wall and hope it sticks.

IMO, Trudeau/whoever is the next Liberal leader (if they pick a new one) will have to address the elephant in the room - which is his immigration policy. This is the main reason he is unpopular now, but this is heavily downplayed in nearly all levels of political discourse in Canada.

One can argue that it's not solely the immigration policy itself but many of the effects of the policy (eg. the rise in the cost of living, particularly housing prices) but all of this goes together because the primary detrimental effects of his immigration policy on the Canadian public have been macroeconomic, up until now.

Trudeau took an immigration system that was previously orderly, widely recognized as successful, based on taking in high-skilled workers via the points system, was historically broadly popular with Canadians and turned it into a scammy, messy, unethical scheme of exploiting cheap labour and reducing our living standards. Of course he would be unpopular because of that, and the fact that he has done nothing to alleviate the cost of living/housing crisis makes it ten times worse. Not to mention, he also basically told everyone that you're not allowed to question his wisdom at all while he was making these severely detrimental changes. It feels almost like he destroyed our previous immigration system for progressive virtue-signalling political points and to move the overton window.

Going forward the Liberals will have to address what they will do to fix this or they have zero chance of getting re-elected in 2025 (and maybe even in the elections afterwards), even if they pick a new leader and somehow manage to rebrand themselves. I think even if they make any meaningful proposals to fix this, they might not recover their previous support, so maybe they might feel that it's better for them politically to keep the current failed policy to 'move the overton window' on immigration and then make the next government have to fix the current mess.

I could go on and on about how poorly immigration has been handled by this government, but I'll try not to, in part because I'd be repeating a lot of what you said. I will say though that Canadian public opinion on immigration hasn't shifted as dramatically as people think. Polling basically always finds that public opinion is generally for maintaining current levels or reducing, but very few support increasing, and this is going back many years. Why this didn't manifest in Canadians' electoral preferences is hard to say, but my general sense is that even Canadians who want less immigration, for the most part, aren't anti-immigrant. "Maybe we should reduce our immigration levels" is not the same as "immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country", even though both takes are technically "anti-immigration".

But yeah I agree with the rest of what you've said, and I think trust in the Canadian immigration system has fallen off a cliff. Our immigration system used to work. When every European country was electing hard-right ethnonationalists and the states was electing Trump, Canada voted for probably the most pro-immigration government of any country in the free world. Because while their immigration system was overwhelmed, ours was working, it was accepting 250k immigrants a year, and we basically had zero integration issues compared to anywhere in Europe or the states. It was working. It was completely unnecessary to blow up the system into basically a giant racket. Trying to decouple the housing crisis and high immigration is an absolute load of crap. We have every bit of evidence that shows that demand is outpacing supply. Oh great, we got the housing accelerator fund. Accelerate it all you want bud, but you'll have to do a lot of accelerating to keep up with the 500,000 people you're adding to the nation. And have fun finding money to pay for all this while Canada's GDP per capita is falling. It is just not working anymore. I said I'd try not to rant, but this whole thing is just so stupid.

I don't think it's immigration alone though. People are just across the board unhappy with this government. Affordability is the big issue right now, and while immigration contributes to it, it's much bigger than that. But it's so many things, if you ask two different people you'll get two different answers. It feels a bit like Harper's final term, when he had pissed off enough people over a sustained period of time, and for different reasons, until the Canadian public basically decided their time was up.

Just to clarify - I don't think immigration is the only reason for Trudeau's unpopularity, but it is the main one.

Primarily because most other issues in the country like housing prices, the healthcare shortage, lack of productivity and investment in workers are things that are at least partly linked to the immigration policy. Not entirely linked to immigration policy, but just think about the fact that our housing crisis, healthcare wait times, falling living standards might be 50 percent less bad if the immigration numbers hadn't skyrocketed in the last few years.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

I feel like immigration is the third rail of Canadian politics. No one wants to be seen as 'racist' for opposing it, even if Canadians generally oppose it.

I do agree that it will be a big issue in the next election. Poilieve will have to address the issue very carefully. He can't be seen as being racist, but he does risk losing votes to the PPC. I assume Bernier is going to focus his campaign heavily on being anti-immigration and with the Tories assured victory, a lot of people on the far right may feel like voting PPC won't split the vote.

Anecdotally I'm seeing a lot of chatter on places like Reddit about the influx of student immigration from India, and how they're not integrating very well (to put it mildly) on campuses. It's certainly fuelling a lot of racism and xenophobia.  

 

I don't think Poilievre or any Canadian politician should go hardline anti-immigration like Trump - but I think in a free society we should be able to discuss immigration openly.

I'm certain the Liberals and the NDP believe this as well, given Justin Trudeau wrote a column in 2014 blasting Harper for increasing (what then seemed like) the temporary foreign workers to relatively high numbers, and Trudeau promised to scale back the program once he's PM. The NDP expressed similar sentiments at the time as well. Their website even said the following;
'Just this month, McDonalds was accused of bringing in temporary foreign workers to replace Canadians at franchise outlets across the country.' Imagine what would happen if a conservative politician used this terminology today.

Funny how they can use immigration to admonish Harper using very harsh terminology, but as soon as the Liberals gain power (and NDP has a confidence and supply agreement with them) immigration is suddenly the third rail of Canadian politics and you can't oppose it without being seen as racist.

Anyway, at the same time, I agree with you that Poilievre (and all other politicians) should be responsible in terms of their immigration rhetoric, mainly because the current anger around immigration has caused a lot of exaggerations and misconceptions about Canada's Indian diaspora in particular.

The argument should simply be; we should go back to the old immigration policy where most immigrants were skilled workers taken via the points based system, and international students and TFWs are limited based on very specific needs. Housing should also be mentioned. This shouldn't be that difficult since Canada had an excellent points based immigration system for over 5 decades.

With that said, I do find it a prime example of gaslighting that Liberals and NDP got away with harshly criticizing the TFW program, then got elected and expanded it to its height.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

I feel like immigration is the third rail of Canadian politics. No one wants to be seen as 'racist' for opposing it, even if Canadians generally oppose it.

I do agree that it will be a big issue in the next election. Poilieve will have to address the issue very carefully. He can't be seen as being racist, but he does risk losing votes to the PPC. I assume Bernier is going to focus his campaign heavily on being anti-immigration and with the Tories assured victory, a lot of people on the far right may feel like voting PPC won't split the vote.

Anecdotally I'm seeing a lot of chatter on places like Reddit about the influx of student immigration from India, and how they're not integrating very well (to put it mildly) on campuses. It's certainly fuelling a lot of racism and xenophobia.   

 

the ppc are a fringe party

They got 5% of the vote last time. Whether you consider that fringe or not is up to you, but it's significant enough for the Conservatives to worry about losing votes to them.

The Tories nominated Erin O Toole last time though, not Pierre Polievre . Erin O Toole was not liked by many right wingers which is why the PPC was able to do that well

2021 was a specific case. That was the election where vaccine mandates/COVID restrictions were an issue, and since PPC were seen as the only party to seriously oppose them, they stole Tory votes based on that (and maybe to some extent from other parties as well). In 2019 PPC only got 2% of the vote - current polling suggests the PPC would get roughly the same percentage now.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The NDP in Canada just proposed a motion in the House of Commons to recognize a Palestinian state. The NDP MP who proposed it, Heather McPherson, went on the CBC for an interview. She was asked by the interviewer why she proposed it. One of the reasons she cited was; 'Unlike any other issue, I've been hearing from hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast about this.' I'm convinced that part of the reason why our country is such a mess right now is because hundreds of thousands of Canadians are expending their time and energy on this issue and not the plethora of domestic issues like the cost of living. If hundreds of thousands of Canadians contacted the government about the cost of housing or immigration policy, the issue would be fixed in a day.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The NDP in Canada just proposed a motion in the House of Commons to recognize a Palestinian state. The NDP MP who proposed it, Heather McPherson, went on the CBC for an interview. She was asked by the interviewer why she proposed it. One of the reasons she cited was; 'Unlike any other issue, I've been hearing from hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast about this.' I'm convinced that part of the reason why our country is such a mess right now is because hundreds of thousands of Canadians are expending their time and energy on this issue and not the plethora of domestic issues like the cost of living. If hundreds of thousands of Canadians contacted the government about the cost of housing or immigration policy, the issue would be fixed in a day.

What's happening in the Middle East may not be effecting many Canadians at home, but it's an humanitarian crisis, and Canadians are a compassionate people. Why shouldn't we care about just what's happening in this country? We are all humans after all.

It's fine to care about it (though I think the NDP position on this is somewhat misguided). I care about foreign policy a lot as well.

My issue is moreso that this is the only issue that has galvanized hundreds of thousands of Canadians, according to Heather McPherson in the CBC interview, to contact their MPs? Not any domestic issue? What would happen if hundreds of thousands of Canadians contacted their MPs about housing? Maybe something would change.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

After the repeal of socialism from the NDP platform, by and large there’s nothing the NDP has to offer to introduce or even seriously advocate for policies that actually matter.

In what way? Whatever word they use in the platform, the NDP has never been a proper "seize the means of production" type party, if that's what you mean by them not advocating for socialism. Their bread and butter has always been to expand the welfare state, and that's been Singh's priority, as it was for every NDP leader other than Mulcair.

You compromise with the society you are dealing with, that’s the general rule for any politician, and getting to the point of abandoning democratic socialism for social democracy means you are going to have to compromise on social democracy and political differentiation from the liberals.

Mulcair was the most successful NDP leader in terms of electoral results, so what exactly are you on about? Furthermore, what expansions of the welfare state that was tangibly felt happened under Singh’s watch with their alliance with Trudeau?

Mulcair was not the most electorally successful NDP leader - Layton was. He was the only leader to win official opposition status.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The NDP in Canada just proposed a motion in the House of Commons to recognize a Palestinian state. The NDP MP who proposed it, Heather McPherson, went on the CBC for an interview. She was asked by the interviewer why she proposed it. One of the reasons she cited was; 'Unlike any other issue, I've been hearing from hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast about this.' I'm convinced that part of the reason why our country is such a mess right now is because hundreds of thousands of Canadians are expending their time and energy on this issue and not the plethora of domestic issues like the cost of living. If hundreds of thousands of Canadians contacted the government about the cost of housing or immigration policy, the issue would be fixed in a day.

What's happening in the Middle East may not be effecting many Canadians at home, but it's an humanitarian crisis, and Canadians are a compassionate people. Why shouldn't we care about just what's happening in this country? We are all humans after all.

It's fine to care about it (though I think the NDP position on this is somewhat misguided). I care about foreign policy a lot as well.

My issue is moreso that this is the only issue that has galvanized hundreds of thousands of Canadians, according to Heather McPherson in the CBC interview, to contact their MPs? Not any domestic issue? What would happen if hundreds of thousands of Canadians contacted their MPs about housing? Maybe something would change.

M.Ps have only so much authority on housing and there are fairly massive changes in at least some areas depending on the provinces. There are massive changes in British Columbia, it still takes time.

I wrote on another thread that things could be sped up even further at the municipal level if more prefab and standardized housing blocks were built. It takes about 3 weeks to build a prefab or standardized housing block versus about 3 months to build a conventional house and they are cheaper to build. Beyond that, they don't require preapproval which speeds up the application process as well thereby reducing the time that the developer needs to own the lot without receiving anything in return (imputed interest cost.)

I think whether that actually lowers the price of housing in an area depends on how much the housing costs are determined solely by the value of the land, but, all else being equal, it certainly should lower housing costs.

As you know, the NIMBYs hate these things and they still have sway in some areas, this isn't as easy as passing some nonbinding resolution. Your argument would fit more if this Canadian resolution on the two states were not only binding in Canada but binding in Israel/Palestine.

I appreciate the frustration, but status quo interests are always very difficult to overcome.

I suspect that even people who don't consider themselves to be NIMBYs might find a problem with standardized housing blocks as the 'aesthetics' are supposedly ugly.

In addition to status quo interests, the other thing that needs to be fought to get things done is people not understanding the consequences of their choices and the tradeoffs involved, and, unfortunately, politicians tend to have a difficult time telling voters 'you have to make a choice.'

You're right for the most part, but prefabs are also more expensive than on-site construction. They would likely reduce housing prices overall by increasing supply, but part of the reason why we don't have more of them is because they're expensive to build.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The other issue that needs to be addressed is single-family zoning. 70% of land in Ontario that is zoned for housing is reserved for detached single-family homes - townhouses, condos, etc are not allowed.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The other issue that needs to be addressed is single-family zoning. 70% of land in Ontario that is zoned for housing is reserved for detached single-family homes - townhouses, condos, etc are not allowed.

Not allowing condos is probably a good thing. As they age, they are a ticking time bomb.

I would jokingly say 'spoken like a true NIMBY' here, but that would be mean.  

In all seriousness, it's not such a great thing when all non single family housing is cramped in small pieces of land. At least allow other types of housing to be built.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

For what it's worth, here's where I think the state of the race is right now: https://twitter.com/Cadeyrnn/status/1770856146443583745?t=6xsnPySW7NXbxu_McbRK7A...

The first map 'feels' right to me, though the NDP winning Langara doesn't (but, I get it- vote splits).

I just hope my nemesis, the Conservative candidate in that riding, doesn't win.

I can't believe someone as nice as you are has a nemesis 

[Make Canada Boring Again]

Finally the federal government has announced some measures to curb the growth in temporary residents, like the international students cap and the 20% reduction in overall temporary residents.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-targets-decrease-temporary-residents-population-1.7151107

But it's not close to enough. We need to go back to the Chretien-Martin-Harper immigration policy of 250K mostly high skilled workers annually via the points system.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The other issue that needs to be addressed is single-family zoning. 70% of land in Ontario that is zoned for housing is reserved for detached single-family homes - townhouses, condos, etc are not allowed.

Not allowing condos is probably a good thing. As they age, they are a ticking time bomb.

I would jokingly say 'spoken like a true NIMBY' here, but that would be mean.  

In all seriousness, it's not such a great thing when all non single family housing is cramped in small pieces of land. At least allow other types of housing to be built.

 One of the problems with Canada's overreliance on condos is that it caters to a very specific kind of resident. When I say condo, I'm using it the way apparently every Ontarian over the age of 40 uses it, basically defined as "shiny tall residential tower". I know, rentals are by definition not condominiums, but a lot of rental apartment development in Canada's big cities have just been condo-style towers with similar demographics and price points.

So forget condos, let's look at the apartment buildings that many people erroneously call condos. In Toronto, you can take a look at basically every apartment tower south of the CN rail line and between Dufferin and the DVP. They're designed around lifestyle, not functionality. Pool? Check. Sauna? Check. Party room? Check. Screening room? Check. Gym? Check. Golf simulator? Check. But then you check out the units, and you see how impractical they are. You'll have 1-bed apartments under 500sqft well into the 2000's in rent. Very few units with more than 2 bedrooms, which ideally you would want for a replacement-rate family. At best you'll get a "den" which at this point is basically understood to be an additional bedroom, only without windows, closets, and a sliding glass door at best. Even the actual bedrooms are often so small that a queen bed will leave you with barely enough space for a nightstand and a sock drawer. They don't really function as housing for the average middle-class Canadian renter. And yet, demand never seems to go down.

The demographic for these kinds of buildings skew very wealthy, and there's no shortage of that in an international hub like Toronto. For one, you have upwardly mobile yuppies from all across the country, making 6 figure salaries and wanting to live it up. Then you remember what Trudeau said about Canada being a "post national state", and realize that he was actually right insofar as Toronto, Vancouver and to a lesser extent Montreal are concerned - you know, the three cities that make up the bulk of his base. These cities are increasingly more connected to other international hubs than they are to the rest of Canada, particularly in terms of where the cashflow is coming from. Don't get me wrong, the fact that we now have cities that attract capital from the whole world over, and people who are very good at maximizing the value of that capital, has been a very good thing for our economy, but all actions have an equal and opposite reaction. That reaction has been a country whose own citizens are increasingly second-class consumers in a globalized market. If you're a middle-class young Canadian who feels left out of the housing market, it's not just because of boomers who are attached to their single-family neighbourhoods, it's also because capital has been flowing very heavily to the kind of development that quite literally isn't for you.

I've been thinking about the ramifications of this a lot lately. Because it's not like this is only happening in the Toronto lakeshore, although that's in many ways ground zero. It seems like every new tower coming up in Toronto, including in places that used to be, and increasingly places that still are, suburbs. These luxury-type residential developments are the norm now, and they're marked up by all manners of bells and whistles, but their functionality as a place where you can actually raise a family is getting worse and worse. But this kind of housing is increasingly the equivalent to the suburban bungalows that we grew up in. As a result, young Canadians don't start families, and with a diminishing labour force we rely more and more on foreign labour and capital. A top-down infusion of capital from the wealthy global elites who understandably see Canada as a good place to live, and especially to invest in real estate, and a bottom-up infusion of unskilled labour to provide the service economy required to attract international capital. Notice how middle-class Canadians are completely missed in this equation.

This, and I think this is largely a product of the policies of the last decade. Trudeau (not only Trudeau, but various levels of government) have turned Canada's largest cities into 'international cities' in a way that they weren't before, and not in a good way. The problems you are describing here used to be associated with New York City, several cities in California, and places like London, UK, but not really Toronto, Montreal, and Vancover. A decade later, before Canadians can even blink and look around, we have those problems almost as much as real 'international cities' do.

Stephen Harper made a good monologue about this 5 or 6 years ago. He talked about 'somewheres' (people who are tied to a single place because of their job, circumstances or loyalties) and 'anywheres' (educated, elite cosmopolitans who earn a high income and can work from or travel to anywhere in the world) and how that is causing a divide internationally.

As recently as 10 years ago, Canadian cities used to feel very much like a place for 'somewheres', a place people are permanently tied to. Canada's society and economy felt like it was built primarily for its middle-class population. Not anymore. Trudeau has largely us turned into a place for 'anywheres'. Canadian cities no longer feel like 'our cozy home' anymore, they feel like a hub for international capital, which isn't necessarily bad, but it means the locals have to survive and adjust to the new economic circumstances.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The other issue that needs to be addressed is single-family zoning. 70% of land in Ontario that is zoned for housing is reserved for detached single-family homes - townhouses, condos, etc are not allowed.

Not allowing condos is probably a good thing. As they age, they are a ticking time bomb.

I would jokingly say 'spoken like a true NIMBY' here, but that would be mean.  

In all seriousness, it's not such a great thing when all non single family housing is cramped in small pieces of land. At least allow other types of housing to be built.

 One of the problems with Canada's overreliance on condos is that it caters to a very specific kind of resident. When I say condo, I'm using it the way apparently every Ontarian over the age of 40 uses it, basically defined as "shiny tall residential tower". I know, rentals are by definition not condominiums, but a lot of rental apartment development in Canada's big cities have just been condo-style towers with similar demographics and price points.

So forget condos, let's look at the apartment buildings that many people erroneously call condos. In Toronto, you can take a look at basically every apartment tower south of the CN rail line and between Dufferin and the DVP. They're designed around lifestyle, not functionality. Pool? Check. Sauna? Check. Party room? Check. Screening room? Check. Gym? Check. Golf simulator? Check. But then you check out the units, and you see how impractical they are. You'll have 1-bed apartments under 500sqft well into the 2000's in rent. Very few units with more than 2 bedrooms, which ideally you would want for a replacement-rate family. At best you'll get a "den" which at this point is basically understood to be an additional bedroom, only without windows, closets, and a sliding glass door at best. Even the actual bedrooms are often so small that a queen bed will leave you with barely enough space for a nightstand and a sock drawer. They don't really function as housing for the average middle-class Canadian renter. And yet, demand never seems to go down.

The demographic for these kinds of buildings skew very wealthy, and there's no shortage of that in an international hub like Toronto. For one, you have upwardly mobile yuppies from all across the country, making 6 figure salaries and wanting to live it up. Then you remember what Trudeau said about Canada being a "post national state", and realize that he was actually right insofar as Toronto, Vancouver and to a lesser extent Montreal are concerned - you know, the three cities that make up the bulk of his base. These cities are increasingly more connected to other international hubs than they are to the rest of Canada, particularly in terms of where the cashflow is coming from. Don't get me wrong, the fact that we now have cities that attract capital from the whole world over, and people who are very good at maximizing the value of that capital, has been a very good thing for our economy, but all actions have an equal and opposite reaction. That reaction has been a country whose own citizens are increasingly second-class consumers in a globalized market. If you're a middle-class young Canadian who feels left out of the housing market, it's not just because of boomers who are attached to their single-family neighbourhoods, it's also because capital has been flowing very heavily to the kind of development that quite literally isn't for you.

I've been thinking about the ramifications of this a lot lately. Because it's not like this is only happening in the Toronto lakeshore, although that's in many ways ground zero. It seems like every new tower coming up in Toronto, including in places that used to be, and increasingly places that still are, suburbs. These luxury-type residential developments are the norm now, and they're marked up by all manners of bells and whistles, but their functionality as a place where you can actually raise a family is getting worse and worse. But this kind of housing is increasingly the equivalent to the suburban bungalows that we grew up in. As a result, young Canadians don't start families, and with a diminishing labour force we rely more and more on foreign labour and capital. A top-down infusion of capital from the wealthy global elites who understandably see Canada as a good place to live, and especially to invest in real estate, and a bottom-up infusion of unskilled labour to provide the service economy required to attract international capital. Notice how middle-class Canadians are completely missed in this equation.

This, and I think this is largely a product of the policies of the last decade. Trudeau (not only Trudeau, but various levels of government) have turned Canada's largest cities into 'international cities' in a way that they weren't before, and not in a good way. The problems you are describing here used to be associated with New York City, several cities in California, and places like London, UK, but not really Toronto, Montreal, and Vancover. A decade later, before Canadians can even blink and look around, we have those problems almost as much as real 'international cities' do.

Stephen Harper made a good monologue about this 5 or 6 years ago. He talked about 'somewheres' (people who are tied to a single place because of their job, circumstances or loyalties) and 'anywheres' (educated, elite cosmopolitans who earn a high income and can work from or travel to anywhere in the world) and how that is causing a divide internationally.

As recently as 10 years ago, Canadian cities used to feel very much like a place for 'somewheres', a place people are permanently tied to. Canada's society and economy felt like it was built primarily for its middle-class population. Not anymore. Trudeau has largely turned into a place for 'anywheres'. Canadian cities no longer feel like 'our cozy home' anymore, they feel like a hub for international capital, which isn't necessarily bad, but it means the locals have to survive and adjust to the new economic circumstances.

It's interesting how Harper's supposedly cold and utilitarian approach to immigration produced a globally acclaimed immigration system. Immigrants to Canada had remarkable levels of cultural integration and upward mobility, precisely because Canada's immigration system (not just under Conservatives, also under the original Trudeau and later Chretien/Martin Liberal governments) emphasized economic benefits to the native population, which consequently created an immigration system that was actually good for the immigrants too. Meanwhile Trudeau's supposedly warm and open approach to immigration is creating an underclass that primarily serves to provide cheap labour to the benefit of wealthy urbanites at the expense of the native middle class. Blowing up the one functional immigration system during a time of global instability and displacement was easily the most unforgivable thing Trudeau has done as Prime Minister.

I can't let Doug Ford off the hook for this though, because his government has taken advantage of Trudeau's nonsense ideological approach to immigration to bolster government revenues, and now he's pandering to NIMBYs which just compounds the problem. And hey, maybe we could have had those lovely suburban neighbourhoods that conservatives love raising families in, if you hadn't filled up our cities with more people than we can reasonably house. Honestly, at this point, I'll take Bonnie Crombie. Yeah she's a Liberal, but I'm not too concerned with labels when the current so-called Conservative government embodies everything I don't like about the Liberals.

And Pearson. Don't forget, the points system was a Pearsonian invention!

Also, yes. I am never voting for Doug Ford again.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

The other issue that needs to be addressed is single-family zoning. 70% of land in Ontario that is zoned for housing is reserved for detached single-family homes - townhouses, condos, etc are not allowed.

Not allowing condos is probably a good thing. As they age, they are a ticking time bomb.

I would jokingly say 'spoken like a true NIMBY' here, but that would be mean.  

In all seriousness, it's not such a great thing when all non single family housing is cramped in small pieces of land. At least allow other types of housing to be built.

 One of the problems with Canada's overreliance on condos is that it caters to a very specific kind of resident. When I say condo, I'm using it the way apparently every Ontarian over the age of 40 uses it, basically defined as "shiny tall residential tower". I know, rentals are by definition not condominiums, but a lot of rental apartment development in Canada's big cities have just been condo-style towers with similar demographics and price points.

So forget condos, let's look at the apartment buildings that many people erroneously call condos. In Toronto, you can take a look at basically every apartment tower south of the CN rail line and between Dufferin and the DVP. They're designed around lifestyle, not functionality. Pool? Check. Sauna? Check. Party room? Check. Screening room? Check. Gym? Check. Golf simulator? Check. But then you check out the units, and you see how impractical they are. You'll have 1-bed apartments under 500sqft well into the 2000's in rent. Very few units with more than 2 bedrooms, which ideally you would want for a replacement-rate family. At best you'll get a "den" which at this point is basically understood to be an additional bedroom, only without windows, closets, and a sliding glass door at best. Even the actual bedrooms are often so small that a queen bed will leave you with barely enough space for a nightstand and a sock drawer. They don't really function as housing for the average middle-class Canadian renter. And yet, demand never seems to go down.

The demographic for these kinds of buildings skew very wealthy, and there's no shortage of that in an international hub like Toronto. For one, you have upwardly mobile yuppies from all across the country, making 6 figure salaries and wanting to live it up. Then you remember what Trudeau said about Canada being a "post national state", and realize that he was actually right insofar as Toronto, Vancouver and to a lesser extent Montreal are concerned - you know, the three cities that make up the bulk of his base. These cities are increasingly more connected to other international hubs than they are to the rest of Canada, particularly in terms of where the cashflow is coming from. Don't get me wrong, the fact that we now have cities that attract capital from the whole world over, and people who are very good at maximizing the value of that capital, has been a very good thing for our economy, but all actions have an equal and opposite reaction. That reaction has been a country whose own citizens are increasingly second-class consumers in a globalized market. If you're a middle-class young Canadian who feels left out of the housing market, it's not just because of boomers who are attached to their single-family neighbourhoods, it's also because capital has been flowing very heavily to the kind of development that quite literally isn't for you.

I've been thinking about the ramifications of this a lot lately. Because it's not like this is only happening in the Toronto lakeshore, although that's in many ways ground zero. It seems like every new tower coming up in Toronto, including in places that used to be, and increasingly places that still are, suburbs. These luxury-type residential developments are the norm now, and they're marked up by all manners of bells and whistles, but their functionality as a place where you can actually raise a family is getting worse and worse. But this kind of housing is increasingly the equivalent to the suburban bungalows that we grew up in. As a result, young Canadians don't start families, and with a diminishing labour force we rely more and more on foreign labour and capital. A top-down infusion of capital from the wealthy global elites who understandably see Canada as a good place to live, and especially to invest in real estate, and a bottom-up infusion of unskilled labour to provide the service economy required to attract international capital. Notice how middle-class Canadians are completely missed in this equation.

This, and I think this is largely a product of the policies of the last decade. Trudeau (not only Trudeau, but various levels of government) have turned Canada's largest cities into 'international cities' in a way that they weren't before, and not in a good way. The problems you are describing here used to be associated with New York City, several cities in California, and places like London, UK, but not really Toronto, Montreal, and Vancover. A decade later, before Canadians can even blink and look around, we have those problems almost as much as real 'international cities' do.

Stephen Harper made a good monologue about this 5 or 6 years ago. He talked about 'somewheres' (people who are tied to a single place because of their job, circumstances or loyalties) and 'anywheres' (educated, elite cosmopolitans who earn a high income and can work from or travel to anywhere in the world) and how that is causing a divide internationally.

As recently as 10 years ago, Canadian cities used to feel very much like a place for 'somewheres', a place people are permanently tied to. Canada's society and economy felt like it was built primarily for its middle-class population. Not anymore. Trudeau has largely turned into a place for 'anywheres'. Canadian cities no longer feel like 'our cozy home' anymore, they feel like a hub for international capital, which isn't necessarily bad, but it means the locals have to survive and adjust to the new economic circumstances.

It's interesting how Harper's supposedly cold and utilitarian approach to immigration produced a globally acclaimed immigration system. Immigrants to Canada had remarkable levels of cultural integration and upward mobility, precisely because Canada's immigration system (not just under Conservatives, also under the original Trudeau and later Chretien/Martin Liberal governments) emphasized economic benefits to the native population, which consequently created an immigration system that was actually good for the immigrants too. Meanwhile Trudeau's supposedly warm and open approach to immigration is creating an underclass that primarily serves to provide cheap labour to the benefit of wealthy urbanites at the expense of the native middle class. Blowing up the one functional immigration system during a time of global instability and displacement was easily the most unforgivable thing Trudeau has done as Prime Minister.

I can't let Doug Ford off the hook for this though, because his government has taken advantage of Trudeau's nonsense ideological approach to immigration to bolster government revenues, and now he's pandering to NIMBYs which just compounds the problem. And hey, maybe we could have had those lovely suburban neighbourhoods that conservatives love raising families in, if you hadn't filled up our cities with more people than we can reasonably house. Honestly, at this point, I'll take Bonnie Crombie. Yeah she's a Liberal, but I'm not too concerned with labels when the current so-called Conservative government embodies everything I don't like about the Liberals.

Laddicus finch's username evolution;

Laddicus Finch---->Average Melissa Lantsman Enjoyer----->Ontario Libertoryan---------->Doug Ford's Developer Buddy--------->Scott Aitchison's shadow account-------->laddicus finch-------->The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ

[Make Canada Boring Again]

Apparently Canada's population hit 41 million yesterday just 9 months after reaching 40 million.

I agree with those who say that this and not the carbon tax are why the Liberals will lose in 2025. It's not even just that Canada can not absorb this number of people in this period of time, but that for a long time the Liberals showed no interest or even understanding of the need to coordinate the population increase with the municipalities and the provinces. This is just basic incompetence.

I can't stand Poilievre or the Conservatives, but I can certainly appreciate the desire to fire a government that demonstrates basic incompetence.

Not only that, but what bothers me is that they destroyed Canada's previously good immigration system. Most of Canada's immigrants used to be high skilled and came through the points system and that was one of the most successful immigration systems in the world - that was the policy for 50 years (with minor adjustments). There was no need to allow the growth of the temporary resident population and lower the standard for permanent residency to the extent that the Liberals did. They could have kept the immigration system the same as it was in 2015 and it wouldn't be an election issue for them, because the old immigration system was effective and reasonably popular. Heck, they probably could have kept 2019 immigration levels without too much backlash. But what they've done in the last 2 to 3 years is completely insane.

[Make Canada Boring Again]

Apparently Canada's population hit 41 million yesterday just 9 months after reaching 40 million.

I agree with those who say that this and not the carbon tax are why the Liberals will lose in 2025. It's not even just that Canada can not absorb this number of people in this period of time, but that for a long time the Liberals showed no interest or even understanding of the need to coordinate the population increase with the municipalities and the provinces. This is just basic incompetence.

I can't stand Poilievre or the Conservatives, but I can certainly appreciate the desire to fire a government that demonstrates basic incompetence.

Not only that, but what bothers me is that they destroyed Canada's previously good immigration system. Most of Canada's immigrants used to be high skilled and came through the points system and that was one of the most successful immigration systems in the world - that was the policy for 50 years (with minor adjustments). There was no need to allow the growth of the temporary resident population and lower the standard for permanent residency to the extent that the Liberals did. They could have kept the immigration system the same as it was in 2015 and it wouldn't be an election issue for them, because the old immigration system was effective and reasonably popular. Heck, they probably could have kept 2019 immigration levels without too much backlash. But what they've done in the last 2 to 3 years is completely insane.

I'm not all that familiar with this because I know the provinces have been given a much greater say on immigration so I don't know if the skilled immigrant program has really been done away with or if its just been transferred to the provinces.

The provinces have been permitted to take advantage of the federal government's permissive policies, but it is the federal government implementing those policies. The federal government lowered the CRS score necessary to earn PR, the federal government issued stuent visas and TFW visas in large numbers, while the provinces are just taking advantage of it either to fund universities or exploit cheap labour.