Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[2952-0-0]

A lot of otherwise reputable community colleges have also cashed in on this grift, leaving even small towns across Ontario facing shortages in rental space. Much of that blame can be laid on Doug Ford, who deregulated community colleges and private educational institutions, and then cut their funding while demanding they cut tuition fees for local students. But it's ultimately the federal government that issues study permits, and the current requirement for financial sustenance for student visas is CAD $ 10,000 per year. That's beyond ridiculous.

Students from India or anywhere who want to come to Waterloo to study computers, or other world-class programs at Canadian universities, should be given a red carpet. But what's happening is a huge grift that's leaving everyone unhappy.

Maybe Modi will order restrictions on these college recruitment agents in India, thinking it would be a punishment. But that would actually make 99% of Canadians kiss his feet. Even Trudeau would kiss his feet for solving such a pressing issue.

[Benjamin Frank]

I wonder if there is any chance Trudeau uses this to overall smartly restrict Indian immigration to more manageable levels while having political cover. Seems like the smartest play and the right for Canada, and US citizens.

I disagree. Restricting Indian immigration would show the world that Canada is afraid of Modi. Canada needs to increase immigration from India, if anything. It sends a better message: “unlike India, Canada is a free nation”

lmao. Are you aware of the current immigration situatuon in Canada and its effect on the housing crisis and cost of living? The strip mall diploma mills?

The idea that immigrants are to blame for housing shortages is nonsensical. Housing shortages are evidence of insufficient supply, not too much demand. Building more housing would solve the problem. Secondly, the implication that a citizen is more deserving of housing than a citizen is xenophobic.

Any time someone is blaming “immigrants” for a societal ill, it’s a distraction from the actual causes.

Although this isn't entirely true because any owner of a house anyway can rent out a room (except where 'secondary suites' are illegal) it's largely true: "at any point in time, the housing supply (the stock of housing) is fixed."

"To be clear, the decision to supply existing housing to the rental market at any point in time is short-run production decision given a fixed stock of homes."
https://medium.com/fresheconomicthinking/a-housing-absorption-rate-formula-9d3aa1206bf0

The upshot is that even without NIMBY restrictions at the local level it takes a few years for new housing developments to go from the planning stage to completion. That immigration levels should be coordinated with the ability to get housing built is a realistic policy and in no way blames immigrants. Removing NIMBY restrictions is necessary but not sufficient.

Of course, building the housing itself doesn't even include all the necessary services that go along with the housing (schools, hospitals...)

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

A lot of otherwise reputable community colleges have also cashed in on this grift, leaving even small towns across Ontario facing shortages in rental space. Much of that blame can be laid on Doug Ford, who deregulated community colleges and private educational institutions, and then cut their funding while demanding they cut tuition fees for local students. But it's ultimately the federal government that issues study permits, and the current requirement for financial sustenance for student visas is CAD $ 10,000 per year. That's beyond ridiculous.

Students from India or anywhere who want to come to Waterloo to study computers, or other world-class programs at Canadian universities, should be given a red carpet. But what's happening is a huge grift that's leaving everyone unhappy.

Was the point of this plan to get colleges to lay off administrators and the like so as to keep costs low for in-province students, or was the asumption always that international tuition would pick up the slack?

I'm also skeptical about welcoming more students into already saturated fields, instead of laser focusing on healthcare or construction-related trades, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

[MaxQue]

I wonder if there is any chance Trudeau uses this to overall smartly restrict Indian immigration to more manageable levels while having political cover. Seems like the smartest play and the right for Canada, and US citizens.

I disagree. Restricting Indian immigration would show the world that Canada is afraid of Modi. Canada needs to increase immigration from India, if anything. It sends a better message: “unlike India, Canada is a free nation”

lmao. Are you aware of the current immigration situatuon in Canada and its effect on the housing crisis and cost of living? The strip mall diploma mills?

The idea that immigrants are to blame for housing shortages is nonsensical. Housing shortages are evidence of insufficient supply, not too much demand. Building more housing would solve the problem. Secondly, the implication that a citizen is more deserving of housing than a citizen is xenophobic.

Any time someone is blaming “immigrants” for a societal ill, it’s a distraction from the actual causes.

Or it means immigration is the cause. Sometimes this is the case, perish the thought!

The current situation in Canada is such a case. Cost of living is through the roof as Trudeau's government is bringing in well over a million immigrants a year in a country of under 40 million. Hundreds of thousands of these are arriving on international student visas to attend diploma mill "colleges" in strip malls that are made up entirely of these visa holders, have terrible outcomes, and are mostly vehicles for roundabout immigration.

You can't magically wave a wand and build millions of housing units overnight. Canada is in crisis and immigration must be dramatically reduced to at least pre-2019 levels as part of the solution.

Your politics have become increasingly unmoored from reality. You are clearly operating on a separate plane in which the things you want to be true, because they make you feel good, are actually true, 100% of the time and without exception.

Immigration in Canada should return to Harper era numbers .

I only said pre-2019 because I was arguing with Fergie. It does need to drop tremendously for awhile until the impact of the last 3 years of insane immigration levels has worn off.

Oh I absolutely agree , which means probably even lower than Harper era numbers for a 3-4 years as well . The amount of student visas they give out is insane and that’s probably the first area they should make drastic cuts in

But that's the thing provinces opposes the most (it's financing their education system), and, for a province like Quebec, which has an immigration deal with the Canadian government, they cannot do it without provincial approval.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I wonder if there is any chance Trudeau uses this to overall smartly restrict Indian immigration to more manageable levels while having political cover. Seems like the smartest play and the right for Canada, and US citizens.

I disagree. Restricting Indian immigration would show the world that Canada is afraid of Modi. Canada needs to increase immigration from India, if anything. It sends a better message: “unlike India, Canada is a free nation”

lmao. Are you aware of the current immigration situatuon in Canada and its effect on the housing crisis and cost of living? The strip mall diploma mills?

The idea that immigrants are to blame for housing shortages is nonsensical. Housing shortages are evidence of insufficient supply, not too much demand. Building more housing would solve the problem. Secondly, the implication that a citizen is more deserving of housing than a citizen is xenophobic.

Any time someone is blaming “immigrants” for a societal ill, it’s a distraction from the actual causes.

Or it means immigration is the cause. Sometimes this is the case, perish the thought!

The current situation in Canada is such a case. Cost of living is through the roof as Trudeau's government is bringing in well over a million immigrants a year in a country of under 40 million. Hundreds of thousands of these are arriving on international student visas to attend diploma mill "colleges" in strip malls that are made up entirely of these visa holders, have terrible outcomes, and are mostly vehicles for roundabout immigration.

You can't magically wave a wand and build millions of housing units overnight. Canada is in crisis and immigration must be dramatically reduced to at least pre-2019 levels as part of the solution.

Your politics have become increasingly unmoored from reality. You are clearly operating on a separate plane in which the things you want to be true, because they make you feel good, are actually true, 100% of the time and without exception.

Immigration in Canada should return to Harper era numbers .

I only said pre-2019 because I was arguing with Fergie. It does need to drop tremendously for awhile until the impact of the last 3 years of insane immigration levels has worn off.

Oh I absolutely agree , which means probably even lower than Harper era numbers for a 3-4 years as well . The amount of student visas they give out is insane and that’s probably the first area they should make drastic cuts in

But that's the thing provinces opposes the most (it's financing their education system), and, for a province like Quebec, which has an immigration deal with the Canadian government, they cannot do it without provincial approval.

This is not a power provinces should have though

[MaxQue]

I wonder if there is any chance Trudeau uses this to overall smartly restrict Indian immigration to more manageable levels while having political cover. Seems like the smartest play and the right for Canada, and US citizens.

I disagree. Restricting Indian immigration would show the world that Canada is afraid of Modi. Canada needs to increase immigration from India, if anything. It sends a better message: “unlike India, Canada is a free nation”

lmao. Are you aware of the current immigration situatuon in Canada and its effect on the housing crisis and cost of living? The strip mall diploma mills?

The idea that immigrants are to blame for housing shortages is nonsensical. Housing shortages are evidence of insufficient supply, not too much demand. Building more housing would solve the problem. Secondly, the implication that a citizen is more deserving of housing than a citizen is xenophobic.

Any time someone is blaming “immigrants” for a societal ill, it’s a distraction from the actual causes.

Or it means immigration is the cause. Sometimes this is the case, perish the thought!

The current situation in Canada is such a case. Cost of living is through the roof as Trudeau's government is bringing in well over a million immigrants a year in a country of under 40 million. Hundreds of thousands of these are arriving on international student visas to attend diploma mill "colleges" in strip malls that are made up entirely of these visa holders, have terrible outcomes, and are mostly vehicles for roundabout immigration.

You can't magically wave a wand and build millions of housing units overnight. Canada is in crisis and immigration must be dramatically reduced to at least pre-2019 levels as part of the solution.

Your politics have become increasingly unmoored from reality. You are clearly operating on a separate plane in which the things you want to be true, because they make you feel good, are actually true, 100% of the time and without exception.

Immigration in Canada should return to Harper era numbers .

I only said pre-2019 because I was arguing with Fergie. It does need to drop tremendously for awhile until the impact of the last 3 years of insane immigration levels has worn off.

Oh I absolutely agree , which means probably even lower than Harper era numbers for a 3-4 years as well . The amount of student visas they give out is insane and that’s probably the first area they should make drastic cuts in

But that's the thing provinces opposes the most (it's financing their education system), and, for a province like Quebec, which has an immigration deal with the Canadian government, they cannot do it without provincial approval.

This is not a power provinces should have though

Changing that would require amending the Constitution, so it's not realistic.

[2952-0-0]

This is not a power provinces should have though

You're confusing separate things here. The Provincial Nominee Programs purely select economic migrants, who must meet criteria set by the provinces, and who are ultimately vetted by the federal government. No one has any problem with these. The issue is with study permits, which are wholly issued by the federal government, but to study at educational institutions that are under provincial jurisdiction. So, when Doug Ford opened the floodgates to these diploma mill colleges, and when the federal government issued too many study permits, that led to the current problems.

That means the solution either means Ford would crack down on diploma mills and fund the community colleges so they wouldn't have to rely on international students, or the federal government would unilaterally tighten requirements for study permits and let the Ford government deal with the problem themselves.

[harpercanuck]

I wonder if there is any chance Trudeau uses this to overall smartly restrict Indian immigration to more manageable levels while having political cover. Seems like the smartest play and the right for Canada, and US citizens.

I disagree. Restricting Indian immigration would show the world that Canada is afraid of Modi. Canada needs to increase immigration from India, if anything. It sends a better message: “unlike India, Canada is a free nation”

lmao. Are you aware of the current immigration situatuon in Canada and its effect on the housing crisis and cost of living? The strip mall diploma mills?

The idea that immigrants are to blame for housing shortages is nonsensical. Housing shortages are evidence of insufficient supply, not too much demand. Building more housing would solve the problem. Secondly, the implication that a citizen is more deserving of housing than a citizen is xenophobic.

Any time someone is blaming “immigrants” for a societal ill, it’s a distraction from the actual causes.

Or it means immigration is the cause. Sometimes this is the case, perish the thought!

The current situation in Canada is such a case. Cost of living is through the roof as Trudeau's government is bringing in well over a million immigrants a year in a country of under 40 million. Hundreds of thousands of these are arriving on international student visas to attend diploma mill "colleges" in strip malls that are made up entirely of these visa holders, have terrible outcomes, and are mostly vehicles for roundabout immigration.

You can't magically wave a wand and build millions of housing units overnight. Canada is in crisis and immigration must be dramatically reduced to at least pre-2019 levels as part of the solution.

Your politics have become increasingly unmoored from reality. You are clearly operating on a separate plane in which the things you want to be true, because they make you feel good, are actually true, 100% of the time and without exception.

Immigration in Canada should return to Harper era numbers .

I only said pre-2019 because I was arguing with Fergie. It does need to drop tremendously for awhile until the impact of the last 3 years of insane immigration levels has worn off.

Oh I absolutely agree , which means probably even lower than Harper era numbers for a 3-4 years as well . The amount of student visas they give out is insane and that’s probably the first area they should make drastic cuts in

But that's the thing provinces opposes the most (it's financing their education system), and, for a province like Quebec, which has an immigration deal with the Canadian government, they cannot do it without provincial approval.

This is not a power provinces should have though

Changing that would require amending the Constitution, so it's not realistic.

This is patently false. Immigration is a federal not provincial jurisdiction. Youre right from a quebec perspective that Lyin Brian caved to separtist demands in the 90s and gave em a special immigration side deal after his meech deal failed. As far as immigration goes it doesn't require provincial input. When harper left office we had a consensus from 1990-2015 every govt avged roughly 200-250k immigrants per year and guess what we had no issues then. My family are one of those immigrants. In fact under chretien the liberals cut immigration and introduced a landing fee(a tax on immigrants) to fight the deficit. My parents had to pay it. Harper eliminated it to win brown votes and it lined up with his tax cutting agenda. Today we have 450k-500k PR's per year

There are small provincial nominee programs that provinces use under like the Atlantic Canada pilot project. But ultimately Feds set the limits on immigration streams etc. When it comes to international students its trickier since the feds dont control education. However nothing is stopping parliament from creating legislation to explicitly put a cap. If it wanted to be done it would be. But under woke trudeau nothing is more important than importing new indian voters and propping up brampton basement rents. Keep voting liberal ya'll.

I believe it was dave chapelle who said something like "hes fighting for people like me" in reference to trump. Trudeau is fighting for Indians like me. I don't have to tip 15% when i do "tiffin deliveries for cheap indian food" Aint nobody want some dumb childcare program, we can get Grandma Kaur over there from india who's visiting to look after the kids for pennies like 300 a month. But yeah keep up the woke stuff Canada, i'm sure trudeau fights for "the middle class and the folks working hard to join it"

[Continential]

I wonder if there is any chance Trudeau uses this to overall smartly restrict Indian immigration to more manageable levels while having political cover. Seems like the smartest play and the right for Canada, and US citizens.

I disagree. Restricting Indian immigration would show the world that Canada is afraid of Modi. Canada needs to increase immigration from India, if anything. It sends a better message: “unlike India, Canada is a free nation”

lmao. Are you aware of the current immigration situatuon in Canada and its effect on the housing crisis and cost of living? The strip mall diploma mills?

The idea that immigrants are to blame for housing shortages is nonsensical. Housing shortages are evidence of insufficient supply, not too much demand. Building more housing would solve the problem. Secondly, the implication that a citizen is more deserving of housing than a citizen is xenophobic.

Any time someone is blaming “immigrants” for a societal ill, it’s a distraction from the actual causes.

What are the "actual causes"?

[Benjamin Frank]

In the other big news in Canada, Doug Ford has admitted he made a mistake and will not remove the land from the Greenbelt for development.

History lesson: Conceding mistakes is how WAC Bennett remained premier of British Columbia for 20 years from 1952-1972.

[OSR stands with Israel]

In the other big news in Canada, Doug Ford has admitted he made a mistake and will not remove the land from the Greenbelt for development.

History lesson: Conceding mistakes is how WAC Bennett remained premier of British Columbia for 20 years from 1952-1972.

You guys can’t have it both ways :


- We want to restrict development for a “Greenbelt”

- We want to build more houses


You have to choose and it seems like you guys have chosen option 1 , so then you have to live with the consequences of that policy decision

[2952-0-0]

You guys can’t have it both ways :


- We want to restrict development for a “Greenbelt”

- We want to build more houses


You have to choose and it seems like you guys have chosen option 1 , so then you have to live with the consequences of that policy decision

This is a lie that Doug Ford used to cover his ass. The developers who proposed building on the Greenbelt were planning multi-million dollar mansions, without paying development charges to municipalities. There's plenty of land to build enough houses for everyone, within what is currently low-density sprawl.

[Oryxslayer]

You guys can’t have it both ways :


- We want to restrict development for a “Greenbelt”

- We want to build more houses


You have to choose and it seems like you guys have chosen option 1 , so then you have to live with the consequences of that policy decision

This is a lie that Doug Ford used to cover his ass. The developers who proposed building on the Greenbelt were planning multi-million dollar mansions, without paying development charges to municipalities. There's plenty of land to build enough houses for everyone, within what is currently low-density sprawl.

I mean at the end of the day buying out a existing property at ~1 million right now and upzoning it is going to be harder then building on new land. The choice of what to build there and whose doing the construction may have been poor (or it might have been a sign of how awful the demand side of the market is), but it's easier and quicker built than purchasing from an individual who fortunately wants to sell - despite it being more financially prudent to sit on the nest egg - and then negotiating NIMBY laws and current residents.

TBH a healthy housing market should have good amounts of not just Single Family Homes, large apartment complexes, but also everything in between. Developers and buyers shouldn't have to unnecessarily pick and choose. But Canada and the GTA housing market are anything but healthy - they are among the most pricy in the world.

[MaxQue]

In the other big news in Canada, Doug Ford has admitted he made a mistake and will not remove the land from the Greenbelt for development.

History lesson: Conceding mistakes is how WAC Bennett remained premier of British Columbia for 20 years from 1952-1972.

You guys can’t have it both ways :


- We want to restrict development for a “Greenbelt”

- We want to build more houses


You have to choose and it seems like you guys have chosen option 1 , so then you have to live with the consequences of that policy decision

I don't care that much for the Greenbelt, but the way to develop it shouldn't be by giving exclusive access to the land to donors and close friends of Cabinet ministers (under the argument of speed), it should be open.

[Hatman 🍁]

There are huge swaths of single family homes in Toronto that can be converted to duplexes and small apartments (what urbanists call the "missing middle") that should be done long before touching the greenbelt. Only sociopaths want to live that far from the city anyway.

[Aurelius2]

There are huge swaths of single family homes in Toronto that can be converted to duplexes and small apartments (what urbanists call the "missing middle") that should be done long before touching the greenbelt. Only sociopaths want to live that far from the city anyway.

lmao

In Canada's situation, who cares what self-righteous urbanists think? Just build! Build outward in the countryside, build upward in the cities, build, build, build until the whole f**king country is no longer as expensive as San Francisco.

[Hatman 🍁]

There are huge swaths of single family homes in Toronto that can be converted to duplexes and small apartments (what urbanists call the "missing middle") that should be done long before touching the greenbelt. Only sociopaths want to live that far from the city anyway.

lmao

Build outward in the countryside

Like I said, sociopathic. We should be limiting sprawl as much as possible, especially in prime agricultural land.

(And just to be clear, I wasn't referring to people who live in rural areas or small towns, but people who live in exurbs and commute to cities.)

Also, I don't want to come off as being some NIMBY here, we should be building as much as possible within the cities to prevent sprawl.

[Benjamin Frank]

In the other big news in Canada, Doug Ford has admitted he made a mistake and will not remove the land from the Greenbelt for development.

History lesson: Conceding mistakes is how WAC Bennett remained premier of British Columbia for 20 years from 1952-1972.

Well, I may have gotten this wrong.

I left out that in the process a second cabinet minister who was implicated resigned, because I figured, who cares now? The Premier has admitted that on the only part of this most of the public likely cares about that he was wrong, end of story (except for the minister who resigned of course!)

However, and I don't know if there is of any connection to the Greenbelt scandal at all, Monte McNaughton the Minister of Labour has resigned and is quitting politics (for now anyway.) Although I don't live in Ontario and admittedly don't know as much as some, McNaughton has clearly been important to the Ford government in developing relationships with private sector labour unions, which enabled the P.Cs to score some breakthroughs in 2022 in places with a lot of private sector union members like Hamilton, Windsor and Northern Ontario.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9978554/ontario-monte-mcnaughton-quits-cabinet-shuffle/

Reading between the lines of the one party insider quoted, the timing of McNaughton's resignation suggests that the belief is McNaughton is leaving now so as to limit any connection between himself and Doug Ford with the idea that Ford will lose the next election and McNaughton will be seen as the obvious untainted outsider successsor.

This isn't new in politics though it seems to be less common now than in the past. Here in British Columbia, although Bill Vander Zalm did not resign mid term, he did not run in the 1983 election and criticized the Bennett government in leaving expecting that Bennett would lose the 1983 election and that he'd be seen as the obvious outsider successor. Bennett though won the 1983 election which stymied Vander Zalm who then shortly after launched an egotistical run for mayor of Vancouver instead.

It all worked out though in the end for Vander Zalm (in the short term anyway) as Bennett quickly made himself unpopular after the election and Bennett resigned shortly after the start of Expo 86 and Vander Zalm ultimately won the Social Credit leadership and the subsequent election.

Christy Clark likely partially did the same thing when she resigned mid term under Premier Gordon Campbell (who also resigned after the start, and in this case finish, of a big world celebration locally, the 2010 Winter Olympics.) Christy Clark had other reasons which makes her resignation not as clear (she didn't like being the Minister for Children and Familes which she viewed as a punishment and I believe she received the offer from talk radio station CKNW while still in office.)

For the final bit of history though: for anybody who believes that federal Finance Minister John Turner resigned hoping to be seen as the obvious outsider successor to Prime Minister Trudeau, they'd be wrong. When Prime Minister Trudeau stepped down after losing the 1979 election, John Turner made it very clear at that time he had no interest in running for the leadership.

In John Turner's telling of the story, he never even meant to resign: He wanted Prime Minister Trudeau to butt out of the Ministry of Finance and expected that Pierre Trudeau knew that's what he meant when he 'offered' his resignation. Trueau's version is that there was a cultural confusion and he had no idea Turner didn't actually mean what he was saying, Turner's version is that Trudeau knew but was undermining Turner's independence as Finance Minister (and the independence of the ministry) because he wanted Turner gone all along.

[oldtimer]

In the other big news in Canada, Doug Ford has admitted he made a mistake and will not remove the land from the Greenbelt for development.

History lesson: Conceding mistakes is how WAC Bennett remained premier of British Columbia for 20 years from 1952-1972.

You guys can’t have it both ways :


- We want to restrict development for a “Greenbelt”

- We want to build more houses


You have to choose and it seems like you guys have chosen option 1 , so then you have to live with the consequences of that policy decision

Why not build small commuter towns just on the edges of the greenbelt ?

[MaxQue]

In the other big news in Canada, Doug Ford has admitted he made a mistake and will not remove the land from the Greenbelt for development.

History lesson: Conceding mistakes is how WAC Bennett remained premier of British Columbia for 20 years from 1952-1972.

You guys can’t have it both ways :


- We want to restrict development for a “Greenbelt”

- We want to build more houses


You have to choose and it seems like you guys have chosen option 1 , so then you have to live with the consequences of that policy decision

Why not build small commuter towns just on the edges of the greenbelt ?

Already in process.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

There are huge swaths of single family homes in Toronto that can be converted to duplexes and small apartments (what urbanists call the "missing middle") that should be done long before touching the greenbelt. Only sociopaths want to live that far from the city anyway.

lmao

Build outward in the countryside

Like I said, sociopathic. We should be limiting sprawl as much as possible, especially in prime agricultural land.

(And just to be clear, I wasn't referring to people who live in rural areas or small towns, but people who live in exurbs and commute to cities.)

Also, I don't want to come off as being some NIMBY here, we should be building as much as possible within the cities to prevent sprawl.

I love hearing this.

What I often say about Vancouver is that we should raze Shaughnessy to the ground and build condos. People don’t like to hear that, of course. But there’s the solution.

Land assemblies along major roadways are already cropping up, but the areas are only zoned to allow for six storeys. I’m sorry, but Oak Street could certainly support some much taller buildings. We are going about things in the complete wrong way, but as normal people are forced out, I think this will keep happening. Rich people voting for Ken Sim was a big mistake.

[OSR stands with Israel]

There are huge swaths of single family homes in Toronto that can be converted to duplexes and small apartments (what urbanists call the "missing middle") that should be done long before touching the greenbelt. Only sociopaths want to live that far from the city anyway.

Unless those homes are empty and unowned , then the government has no right whatsoever to do anything to them without the owner’s consent .

 

[OSR stands with Israel]

There are huge swaths of single family homes in Toronto that can be converted to duplexes and small apartments (what urbanists call the "missing middle") that should be done long before touching the greenbelt. Only sociopaths want to live that far from the city anyway.

lmao

Build outward in the countryside

Like I said, sociopathic. We should be limiting sprawl as much as possible, especially in prime agricultural land.

(And just to be clear, I wasn't referring to people who live in rural areas or small towns, but people who live in exurbs and commute to cities.)

Also, I don't want to come off as being some NIMBY here, we should be building as much as possible within the cities to prevent sprawl.

This does not change the fact that you think stopping  sprawl should be a bigger priority than building new homes .

If you didn’t then you wouldn’t mind allowing development in the greenbelt

[Oryxslayer]

I don't think the NDP wants to be blamed for handing over the government to Skippy, so they're probably going to continue their timidity in their role as junior partners in the confidence and supply agreement.

Agreed.  Layton got blamed in 2006 by many on left over Harper winning even though wasn't his fault.  I mean it was voters who made decision but agreed want to avoid that.  I think bigger problem both parties face is changing electorate.  Loss of Red Wall in UK and Obama-Trump counties are not unique to respective places, we are seeing same thing.  Main thing is parties need to pivot.  For Liberals upper middle class suburbs much like Biden is where they will compensate and already have by and large.  For NDP, urban core ridings is where they will make up for potential loss of blue collar resource based ones.  

So even though things not looking good for NDP now, I do think NDP can still gain seats.  If they were to sweep downtown Toronto, gain Halifax, a few in Montreal like Laurier-Sainte Marie, maybe another seat or two in Edmonton, a few left leaning in Lower Mainland, that could offset the more blue collar ones many expect them to lose (not saying they will but real risk).

I've been a bit out of the loop - do we think the most likely scenario is the next election is around two years from now in 2025? Or could we see one sooner - and if so, when?

I know the Grits are very unlikely to pull the plug right now given their unpopularity...would Jagmeet be able to break the confidence and supply agreement if he wanted to? Would the NDP want to anytime soon (to vote with the Tories, Bloc and Greens to dissolve Parliament?)

I'm bored, I want an election to follow lol. Not knowing if the wait will be 2 years or only a few months is agonizing when you're an election geek!

Well, maintaining support is the majority position,  but not by the overwhelming margins one would in theory expect with PP polling at a majority:

https://twitter.com/CanadianPolling/status/1705350390730883270?t=fZQgORwCRXtEr6J...

[2952-0-0]

Unless those homes are empty and unowned , then the government has no right whatsoever to do anything to them without the owner’s consent .

No one has proposed taking private property without the owner's consent. The only thing that is being proposed is a deregulation of zoning rules - you know, what free-market conservatives should support - to allow the owners of private property to build denser housing, or sell their property to a developer who wants to.

I'm happy that the Trudeau Liberals are finally waking up to this problem, and requiring municipalities to change their zoning regulations if they want federal funds for affordable housing.

It's also the best value for taxpayers. Continued low-density sprawl would require municipalities to maintain more miles of streets and utilities without an increase in the number of taxpayers, thus forcing each taxpayer to pay more. Densifying already developed land would allow the cost to be split among more taxpayers, reducing the property tax bill for everyone.

So, the most logical and proven solution is to keep the Greenbelt, and deregulate zoning, so that property tax bills in existing suburban municipalities can be lowered.