Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Upper Canada Tory]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10397176/trudeau-temporary-immigration-canada/
Seems like Trudeau actually is backtracking. There actually could be a scenario where this entire international surge was more incompetence rather than malice.

“To give an example, in 2017, two per cent of Canada’s population was made up of temporary immigrants. Now we’re at 7.5 per cent of our population comprised of temporary immigrants. That’s something we need to get back under control.”

I can't believe the federal government is that incompetent.
Maybe they listened to businesses having difficulties to find employees due to manpower shortage rather than problems associated with such an influx of people.

If Britain left the EU over Immigration I wonder if Quebec will leave Canada over it too.

Will the BQ use the issue ?

The BQ may use it but it's very difficult for a province to actually secede. The constitutional amendment formula for a province to leave is unanimous consent from 7 provincial legislatures with the majority of the country's population as well as the House and Senate. Support for Quebec separatism right now is in the 35% range inside Quebec, so I don't think they'd be able to get unanimous consent in their own province for Quebec independence, let alone other provinces.

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search#:~:text=There%20must%20be%20at%20least,for%20the%20amendment%20to%20succeed.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Premier Doug Ford says he wants only Ontario students at universities, colleges

First Trudeau flip-flops on temporary resident numbers, now this. Are Canadian politicians now just going to become serial flip-floppers because they just realized their immigration/international student policies are extremely unpopular?

This is silly.

Yes, there is a problem with phony 'diploma mills' but it's also the case that genuine foreign students help keep tuitions lower for domestic students and Canada has some of the best recognized universities in the world that bring in enormous export dollars (a foreigner spending money in Canada is included in export dollars.)

This is certainly far 'cleaner' money than the money Canada gets from exporting fossil fuels.

If this is popular, it's another case of Canadians not understanding the consequences of their choices especially in terms of how this will impact tuitions for domestic students.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Premier Doug Ford says he wants only Ontario students at universities, colleges

First Trudeau flip-flops on temporary resident numbers, now this. Are Canadian politicians now just going to become serial flip-floppers because they just realized their immigration/international student policies are extremely unpopular?

This is silly.

Yes, there is a problem with phony 'diploma mills' but it's also the case that genuine foreign students help keep tuitions lower for domestic students and Canada has some of the best recognized universities in the world that bring in enormous export dollars (a foreigner spending money in Canada is included in export dollars.)

If this is popular, it's another case of Canadians not understanding the consequences of their choices especially in terms of how this will impact tuitions for domestic students.

You are right and I don't support fully ending the international students program but it is just a demonstration of how willing Ford is to U-turn on an issue where he knows his stance is unpopular.

[oldtimer]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10397176/trudeau-temporary-immigration-canada/
Seems like Trudeau actually is backtracking. There actually could be a scenario where this entire international surge was more incompetence rather than malice.

“To give an example, in 2017, two per cent of Canada’s population was made up of temporary immigrants. Now we’re at 7.5 per cent of our population comprised of temporary immigrants. That’s something we need to get back under control.”

I can't believe the federal government is that incompetent.
Maybe they listened to businesses having difficulties to find employees due to manpower shortage rather than problems associated with such an influx of people.

If Britain left the EU over Immigration I wonder if Quebec will leave Canada over it too.

Will the BQ use the issue ?

The BQ may use it but it's very difficult for a province to actually secede. The constitutional amendment formula for a province to leave is unanimous consent from 7 provincial legislatures with the majority of the country's population as well as the House and Senate. Support for Quebec separatism right now is in the 35% range inside Quebec, so I don't think they'd be able to get unanimous consent in their own province for Quebec independence, let alone other provinces.

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search#:~:text=There%20must%20be%20at%20least,for%20the%20amendment%20to%20succeed.

So unlike 1995 even if the BQ win a referendum they can't leave ?

Basically Catalonia then.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10397176/trudeau-temporary-immigration-canada/
Seems like Trudeau actually is backtracking. There actually could be a scenario where this entire international surge was more incompetence rather than malice.

“To give an example, in 2017, two per cent of Canada’s population was made up of temporary immigrants. Now we’re at 7.5 per cent of our population comprised of temporary immigrants. That’s something we need to get back under control.”

I can't believe the federal government is that incompetent.
Maybe they listened to businesses having difficulties to find employees due to manpower shortage rather than problems associated with such an influx of people.

If Britain left the EU over Immigration I wonder if Quebec will leave Canada over it too.

Will the BQ use the issue ?

The BQ may use it but it's very difficult for a province to actually secede. The constitutional amendment formula for a province to leave is unanimous consent from 7 provincial legislatures with the majority of the country's population as well as the House and Senate. Support for Quebec separatism right now is in the 35% range inside Quebec, so I don't think they'd be able to get unanimous consent in their own province for Quebec independence, let alone other provinces.

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search#:~:text=There%20must%20be%20at%20least,for%20the%20amendment%20to%20succeed.

So unlike 1995 even if the BQ win a referendum they can't leave ?

Basically Catalonia then.

I'm actually not sure Ontario Tory is correct about this. What the Supreme Court ruled is that the rest of the country has to negotiate with any province that votes to separate provided that a clear question is approved by the voters of that province. There is an open question as to what percentage approval is required. I think the term used is 'clear majority.'

This ruling formed the basis of the 'Clarity Act' that was passed by the Chretien government, who get the credit for it, but largely forgotten is that the Clarity Act itself was mostly written by Preston Manning.

In terms of how this relates to 'Brexit' obviously one could argue that 'Brexit' did not receive a large enough percentage. But, for instance, it's also possible if that situation were applied to Canada, that the other provinces and the federal government could argue that the 'Brexit' campaign was based on a series of lies, and so, is not a basis for a mandate.

These same points would have been made had the 1995 Quebec referendum received just over 50% of the vote.

[oldtimer]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10397176/trudeau-temporary-immigration-canada/
Seems like Trudeau actually is backtracking. There actually could be a scenario where this entire international surge was more incompetence rather than malice.

“To give an example, in 2017, two per cent of Canada’s population was made up of temporary immigrants. Now we’re at 7.5 per cent of our population comprised of temporary immigrants. That’s something we need to get back under control.”

I can't believe the federal government is that incompetent.
Maybe they listened to businesses having difficulties to find employees due to manpower shortage rather than problems associated with such an influx of people.

If Britain left the EU over Immigration I wonder if Quebec will leave Canada over it too.

Will the BQ use the issue ?

The BQ may use it but it's very difficult for a province to actually secede. The constitutional amendment formula for a province to leave is unanimous consent from 7 provincial legislatures with the majority of the country's population as well as the House and Senate. Support for Quebec separatism right now is in the 35% range inside Quebec, so I don't think they'd be able to get unanimous consent in their own province for Quebec independence, let alone other provinces.

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search#:~:text=There%20must%20be%20at%20least,for%20the%20amendment%20to%20succeed.

So unlike 1995 even if the BQ win a referendum they can't leave ?

Basically Catalonia then.

I'm actually not sure Ontario Tory is correct about this. What the Supreme Court ruled is that the rest of the country has to negotiate with any province that votes to separate provided that a clear question is approved by the voters of that province. There is an open question as to what percentage approval is required. I think the term used is 'clear majority.'

This ruling formed the basis of the 'Clarity Act' that was passed by the Chretien government, who get the credit for it, but largely forgotten is that the Clarity Act itself was mostly written by Preston Manning.

In terms of how this relates to 'Brexit' obviously one could argue that 'Brexit' did not receive a large enough percentage. But, for instance, it's also possible if that situation were applied to Canada, that the other provinces and the federal government could argue that the 'Brexit' campaign was based on a series of lies, and so, is not a basis for a mandate.

These same points would have been made had the 1995 Quebec referendum received just over 50% of the vote.

So it will require something like a Conservative-BQ coalition.

Allowing Quebec to leave to make the rest of Canada more conservative or a double Quebec-Western secession.

[MaxQue]

Premier Doug Ford says he wants only Ontario students at universities, colleges

First Trudeau flip-flops on temporary resident numbers, now this. Are Canadian politicians now just going to become serial flip-floppers because they just realized their immigration/international student policies are extremely unpopular?

You see flip-floppers, I see people admitting they were wrong, better late than never. Who cares if they're doing the right thing now for the wrong reason?

Not all provinces offer every education program under the sun and may need to rely on other provinces. For example, people in my part of Quebec who want to become morticians are usually going to the Collège Boréal in Sudbury, as it is closer than any Quebec establishment offering the course.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10397176/trudeau-temporary-immigration-canada/
Seems like Trudeau actually is backtracking. There actually could be a scenario where this entire international surge was more incompetence rather than malice.

“To give an example, in 2017, two per cent of Canada’s population was made up of temporary immigrants. Now we’re at 7.5 per cent of our population comprised of temporary immigrants. That’s something we need to get back under control.”

I can't believe the federal government is that incompetent.
Maybe they listened to businesses having difficulties to find employees due to manpower shortage rather than problems associated with such an influx of people.

If Britain left the EU over Immigration I wonder if Quebec will leave Canada over it too.

Will the BQ use the issue ?

The BQ may use it but it's very difficult for a province to actually secede. The constitutional amendment formula for a province to leave is unanimous consent from 7 provincial legislatures with the majority of the country's population as well as the House and Senate. Support for Quebec separatism right now is in the 35% range inside Quebec, so I don't think they'd be able to get unanimous consent in their own province for Quebec independence, let alone other provinces.

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search#:~:text=There%20must%20be%20at%20least,for%20the%20amendment%20to%20succeed.

So unlike 1995 even if the BQ win a referendum they can't leave ?

Basically Catalonia then.

I'm actually not sure Ontario Tory is correct about this. What the Supreme Court ruled is that the rest of the country has to negotiate with any province that votes to separate provided that a clear question is approved by the voters of that province. There is an open question as to what percentage approval is required. I think the term used is 'clear majority.'

This ruling formed the basis of the 'Clarity Act' that was passed by the Chretien government, who get the credit for it, but largely forgotten is that the Clarity Act itself was mostly written by Preston Manning.

In terms of how this relates to 'Brexit' obviously one could argue that 'Brexit' did not receive a large enough percentage. But, for instance, it's also possible if that situation were applied to Canada, that the other provinces and the federal government could argue that the 'Brexit' campaign was based on a series of lies, and so, is not a basis for a mandate.

These same points would have been made had the 1995 Quebec referendum received just over 50% of the vote.

So it will require something like a Conservative-BQ coalition.

Allowing Quebec to leave to make the rest of Canada more conservative or a double Quebec-Western secession.

Of course I don't dismiss the sentiment entirely, but separatism was a dream of one generation of Quebecers that followed on the 'Quiet Revolution' in Quebec of the early 1960s.

Far more likely than any vote of Quebecers to separate is the Canadian public voting to separate itself from this Liberal government.

[Independents for Nihilism]

Premier Doug Ford says he wants only Ontario students at universities, colleges

First Trudeau flip-flops on temporary resident numbers, now this. Are Canadian politicians now just going to become serial flip-floppers because they just realized their immigration/international student policies are extremely unpopular?

You see flip-floppers, I see people admitting they were wrong, better late than never. Who cares if they're doing the right thing now for the wrong reason?

Not all provinces offer every education program under the sun and may need to rely on other provinces. For example, people in my part of Quebec who want to become morticians are usually going to the Collège Boréal in Sudbury, as it is closer than any Quebec establishment offering the course.

That's true, I was acting under the assumption Ford's hypothetical policy would refer to domestic students, not just Ontario students alone. Would there even be enough Ontario students to support all Ontario universities, considering many would still leave for school? Probably not.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Premier Doug Ford says he wants only Ontario students at universities, colleges

First Trudeau flip-flops on temporary resident numbers, now this. Are Canadian politicians now just going to become serial flip-floppers because they just realized their immigration/international student policies are extremely unpopular?

You see flip-floppers, I see people admitting they were wrong, better late than never. Who cares if they're doing the right thing now for the wrong reason?

Not all provinces offer every education program under the sun and may need to rely on other provinces. For example, people in my part of Quebec who want to become morticians are usually going to the Collège Boréal in Sudbury, as it is closer than any Quebec establishment offering the course.

That's true, I was acting under the assumption Ford's hypothetical policy would refer to domestic students, not just Ontario students alone. Would there even be enough Ontario students to support all Ontario universities, considering many would still leave for school? Probably not.

You're treating this as if Doug Ford actually thought about it beforehand.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/rachaiello/status/1775909023004443060?t=SDnSjAGzLxXqtNPEifIj...

Notably all three are in areas that on paper the Tories would be looking at for gains under current polling or similar. Their retirement,  especially Angus's, further complicates the NDP position. It is also another sign that the NDPs federal policies are becoming more Urban+First Nation and less labor.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://twitter.com/rachaiello/status/1775909023004443060?t=SDnSjAGzLxXqtNPEifIj...
Notably all three are in areas that on paper the Tories would be looking at for gains under current polling or similar. Their retirement,  especially Angus's, further complicates the NDP position. It is also another sign that the NDPs federal policies are becoming more Urban+First Nation and less labor.

With the incumbents retiring, all three of these should be relatively easy pickups for the Conservatives. And yes, it's very telling that all three represent rural ridings.

With these announcements, I don't think a blue sweep of Northern Ontario is merely possible - I think it's likely. And if it doesn't happen, it will be because Patty Hajdu holds onto her seat.

[Hatman 🍁]

An all blue Northern Ontario... never thought I'd see the day. Makes sense though, considering modern educational realignment.

[Open Source Intelligence]

https://twitter.com/rachaiello/status/1775909023004443060?t=SDnSjAGzLxXqtNPEifIj...
Notably all three are in areas that on paper the Tories would be looking at for gains under current polling or similar. Their retirement,  especially Angus's, further complicates the NDP position. It is also another sign that the NDPs federal policies are becoming more Urban+First Nation and less labor.

Should they be renamed to the Vancouver and Arctic Party?

[Upper Canada Tory]

Here is a good video about Canada's productivity problem.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xrR7PQOSnzo

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

In hindsight I think it's clear that it's very unfortunate Erin O'Toole did not win in 2021.

While this is obviously counterfactual and it's impossible to know what would have happened with this Conservative government (mostly in terms of how the Conservative M.Ps, many of whom supported Pierre Poilievre, would have behaved under Prime Minister O'Toole) we know that Covid shortly after downgraded itself by remaining very contagious but becoming less virulent.

Had O'Toole won and succeeded as Prime Minister he would have restored the virtues of Progressive Conservatism and would have introduced a rather interesting pro private sector union progressive conservatism (at least in modern times.)

We also know that this term of the Liberal government has been a disaster all around. What accomplishments do they have? They've raised the consumer carbon tax (and the rebates) which I appreciate, but according to those who've crunched the numbers, most of the heavy lifting on reducing emissions is the result of the industrial carbon tax.

They did, along with Ontario, negotiate a deal to bring in large battery production facilities to Canada, that if it produces spin offs (network effects) should be a success, but the subsidies for this were enormous, and, at least one of these manufacturing facilities has been delayed to 2027.

Their signature campaign promise was $10 a day child care which they've negotiated with the provinces, but I understand it's largely stillborn due to the lack of workers and facilities. Not a surprise necessarily because the government has a large deficit and $10 a day isn't going to bring in anywhere near enough money (maybe a $25 a day child care program would have worked.)

At the same time, due to the CASA with the NDP, they've had to bring in two additional programs that seem to also be stillborn, a dental program that is a bureaucratic mess and that apparently very few dentists have signed up for, and a prescription drug program that might succeed in the coming years but probably won't get much traction before the next election.

And now we have Trudeau going around making more phony spending promises that they don't have the money for. (I like many of them but governing ultimately is about making hard choices and the debt is so high right now that the interest payments are becoming a concern as they were in the early 1990s, especially when combined with the large provincial deficits and debt.)

Of course, the Liberals have done some good things pushing through additional housing over the municipal NIMBYS which the B.C government, but not the Ontario government, has run with, but, if it weren't for the large increase in population since 2021, this wouldn't have been quite a big deal.

Had Justin Trudeau lost in 2021, as I've said before, with the exception of the loss, I think he would have been ultimately considered as successful as Lester Pearson who, among many successes, brought in the legislation for national Medicare. One interesting thing people don't remember about that though, unlike with Justin Trudeau, is that its rollout was delayed for a few years after the legislation passed, and Pierre Trudeau in his first term from 1968-1972 didn't implement any other social programs except for, in addition to Medicare, expanding unemployment insurance coverage in 1971.

Also, for what it's worth, of course who knows, but the Liberals in 1968 under Pearson were trailing the Robert Stanfield Progressive Conservatives by up to 20%, so had Pearson stayed on, he likely would have lost as well.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Why is there such a large discrepancy between government estimates of how many additional homes Canada needs to reach affordability by 2030? CMHC says we need 3.5 million homes on top of what is already being built, but the PBO says 1.3 million are needed. There is a 6 month difference between when the estimates were made so I'm not sure the supply picture has changed that much since then.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

This is where I think the Liberal government went off track.

There are some people who think that governments are all politics all the time and are complete incompetents otherwise, there are those who think that governments are some kind of evil geniuses with complete control over 'everything' (oddly, many people seem to think both.)

My view is somewhere in the middle. Governments are mostly made up of decent but flawed humans who have imperfect information and an inability to understand the full consequences of their policies anyway, even at the macro level.

There are two types of thinking: the concrete 'micro' level practical thinking, and the abstract 'macro' level 'big picture' thinking.

Beyond this, there is the idea in social science of 'partial equilibrium' and 'general equilibrium.' Partial equilibrium is based on what social science refers to as 'first order effects.' That is, the immediate or 'concrete' consequences of, in this case, government policy. General equilibrium is based on 'second order effects', 'third order effects... Much more complex abstract thinking is required.

Most humans, are good at understanding 'first order' effects but get pretty hopeless taking it further. There is no reason to believe that politicians are any different.

Then, there is this silly notion that governments have perfect information. In reality, governments make 'macro level' decisions based on theories, whether they are from political science, economics, sociology...

When the Liberals were first elected in 2015, they argued, backed up by many economists, that government spending could boost 'supply side' productivity so would result in at least enough revenue to the government to finance the interest costs on this increased deficit.

That was essentially what they argued at that time.

At some point however, this government became enamored with this notion, just as at least some people on the right used to sincerely claim (like Jack Kemp) that 'tax cuts pay for themselves' that 'government spending pays for itself.' This is the argument that the Liberals made when it came to (supposedly) rolling out child care, for instance: the increase in the labor force participation rate would be so great with child care, that it will end up bringing in as much revenue as it costs.

I think you can see the big difference from claiming that increased government spending could boost productivity enough to pay for the interest on the increase in the deficit, to the increased government spending will pay for itself.

Anyway, very unfortunate when governments take their theories to an extreme level and believe it, but I think that's what happened here.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

This is where I think the Liberal government went off track.

There are some people who think that governments are all politics all the time and are complete incompetents otherwise, there are those who think that governments are some kind of evil geniuses with complete control over 'everything' (oddly, many people seem to think both.)

My view is somewhere in the middle. Governments are mostly made up of decent but flawed humans who have imperfect information and an inability to understand the full consequences of their policies anyway, even at the macro level.

There are two types of thinking: the concrete 'micro' level practical thinking, and the abstract 'macro' level 'big picture' thinking.

Beyond this, there is the idea in social science of 'partial equilibrium' and 'general equilibrium.' Partial equilibrium is based on what social science refers to as 'first order effects.' That is, the immediate or 'concrete' consequences of, in this case, government policy. General equilibrium is based on 'second order effects', 'third order effects... Much more complex abstract thinking is required.

Most humans, are good at understanding 'first order' effects but get pretty hopeless taking it further. There is no reason to believe that politicians are any different.

Then, there is this silly notion that governments have perfect information. In reality, governments make 'macro level' decisions based on theories, whether they are from political science, economics, sociology...

When the Liberals were first elected in 2015, they argued, backed up by many economists, that government spending could boost 'supply side' productivity so would result in at least enough revenue to the government to finance the interest costs on this increased deficit.

That was essentially what they argued at that time.

At some point however, this government became enamored with this notion, just as at least some people on the right used to sincerely claim (like Jack Kemp) that 'tax cuts pay for themselves' that 'government spending pays for itself.' This is the argument that the Liberals made when it came to (supposedly) rolling out child care, for instance: the increase in the labor force participation rate would be so great with child care, that it will end up bringing in as much revenue as it costs.

I think you can see the big difference from claiming that increased government spending could boost productivity enough to pay for the interest on the increase in the deficit, to the increased government spending will pay for itself.

Anyway, very unfortunate when governments take their theories to an extreme level and believe it, but I think that's what happened here.

What's going on? Why am I agreeing with all of Benjamin Frank's takes all of a sudden??

In seriousness, I think there's a lot of merit to what you're suggesting. There's a lot of voodoo economics that passes for serious policy in this government.

I think it's naive to assume that governments primarily look at the evidence first and come to conclusions later, when in reality, I think more often than not it's the opposite. Hell, not just government, it goes for people too, we all do it to a certain extent. I think of it like how a lot of anti-vaccine people were (are) so eager to cite studies that support their views, implying that they made their decisions based on a thorough examination of the evidence, when in reality most made that decision for a variety of different reasons and offered post-hoc rationalization through cherrypicked studies that supported their choice. I'm sorry LPC, I know you guys hate anti-vaxxers, but over the past 9 years, you've been the economic antivaxxers. It really goes for so many of the major decisions they've made, especially on public finances. The budget was supposed to balance itself years ago, and maybe it would have, if not for factors outside of the government's control like Covid or Ukraine or whatever else. No, they're not at fault for those external factors, I'll give them that. But it's still your JOB. "Our policy will work if nothing goes wrong" is a hopelessly naive and stupid approach to governance, because guess what, things go wrong. All the time. You're making decisions on behalf of 40 million people, you don't get a pass for doing stupid things that would work in an ideal world that we don't live in.

It's also fundamentally unserious to cherry-pick the economic metrics that work in your favour and act like that's a reflection of economic health. If GDP growth were the only relevant metric, hey, they've done a pretty good job. Except it's not, GDP per capita is actually in a steady decline, and GDP per capita is a much more accurate reflection of how actual Canadians interact with the economy. If job growth were the only metric, then they've done a good job, as Canada has added millions of new jobs. But especially since 2020, those new jobs have been overwhelmingly in the public sector, while our private sector is one of the most unproductive in the developed world. "Job creation" is fundamentally different in the public vs private sector, because public sector job growth has zero to do with broader economic circumstances. Debt-to-GDP ratio seems like a reasonable metric of healthy control of public finances, until your debt skyrockets and GDP tanks due to a global pandemic and subsequent supply shortages, and suddenly that ratio is getting bigger and bigger. Bringing in more immigrants to fill labour shortages seems like a sensible policy, except those labour shortages are in very specific sectors that Canada's internal bureaucracies make prohibitively difficult for many immigrants to enter, so you end up with people competing for low-paying jobs that there's really not a shortage for. It just goes on and on and on. And now, with the Liberals desperately trying to hold onto power by announcing all sorts of programs, they're rationalizing it, in part, by saying that these things will actually have an economic windfall on the long term.

But then we come back to the self-rationalizing thing. I think the Liberals want to increase spending on social services on an ideological basis, just like Republicans with tax cuts. Except that's not a very compelling argument, especially not to their highly-educated base. So you throw around buzzwords like "evidence-based" and "research shows" and cite studies that align with what you wanted to do anyway.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Kind of a tangent but I have to say, I really hate the way politicians talk about job creation. There's a story of Milton Friedman travelling to an Asian country (I don't know if this story is true, but it points out the absurdity of the way governments sometimes approach job creation), where he saw villagers digging a canal with shovels and pickaxes. He asks the foreman if their country didn't have mechanized construction equipment. The foreman replied "yes, but this is a jobs program, and doing it with shovels instead of machines creates more jobs". Friedman replies "if it's a jobs program, why not take away their shovels and give them spoons, creating even more jobs?"

I think about this story every time a politician talks about "creating jobs". Creating a job isn't hard, it's actually very easy, literally anyone can create a job. You could sign an employment contract where you pay someone to sit around and do literally nothing, and on paper, that's a job, and someone's getting paid for it. This is an absurd example of course, I'm not saying that's what the Canadian government does. But the point is, job creation is not a bellwether of economic health.

On a macro scale, job growth means the economy is expanding, hence why employers need more labour. But this doesn't apply to the public sector, because the public sector's spending capacity is limited by the government, not broader market forces. The economy could be in complete tatters and you can have positive job growth through more government hiring, it means absolutely nothing. On a micro scale, job growth is obviously good for the person who got the job, and that's why it's such a popular buzzword with politicians on all sides. But again, with public sector job growth, where is this money coming from? The private sector; i.e., everyone. Now, if the government jobs are providing a function that delivers a return for the taxpayer, then that's one thing. But the logic of job growth uber alles, when applied to the public sector, implies that the government is creating those jobs for the primary purpose of creating jobs. What follows is that private sector employers and employees end up subsidizing public sector jobs that don't provide an economic function valuable enough to justify the wages. In other words, the private sector gets smothered by the public sector. If it's not taxes, it's deficits and the impact they have on interest rates, which affect everything in the private sector, be it mortgages, car loans, or business loans. Things that could actually create jobs that provide an economic function.

In conclusion, Canada's current economic situation is increasingly looking like an example of why "creating jobs" is one of the WORST policy priorities for governments to pursue (barring like a Great Depression scenario where it's either that or your country falls apart). When it's all about making the job ticker tick up, the actual reason why jobs exist, to do things, gets lost in the wind. Like Friedman suggested, we've been using spoons to dig canals.

[Upper Canada Tory]

This is where I think the Liberal government went off track.

There are some people who think that governments are all politics all the time and are complete incompetents otherwise, there are those who think that governments are some kind of evil geniuses with complete control over 'everything' (oddly, many people seem to think both.)

My view is somewhere in the middle. Governments are mostly made up of decent but flawed humans who have imperfect information and an inability to understand the full consequences of their policies anyway, even at the macro level.

There are two types of thinking: the concrete 'micro' level practical thinking, and the abstract 'macro' level 'big picture' thinking.

Beyond this, there is the idea in social science of 'partial equilibrium' and 'general equilibrium.' Partial equilibrium is based on what social science refers to as 'first order effects.' That is, the immediate or 'concrete' consequences of, in this case, government policy. General equilibrium is based on 'second order effects', 'third order effects... Much more complex abstract thinking is required.

Most humans, are good at understanding 'first order' effects but get pretty hopeless taking it further. There is no reason to believe that politicians are any different.

Then, there is this silly notion that governments have perfect information. In reality, governments make 'macro level' decisions based on theories, whether they are from political science, economics, sociology...

When the Liberals were first elected in 2015, they argued, backed up by many economists, that government spending could boost 'supply side' productivity so would result in at least enough revenue to the government to finance the interest costs on this increased deficit.

That was essentially what they argued at that time.

At some point however, this government became enamored with this notion, just as at least some people on the right used to sincerely claim (like Jack Kemp) that 'tax cuts pay for themselves' that 'government spending pays for itself.' This is the argument that the Liberals made when it came to (supposedly) rolling out child care, for instance: the increase in the labor force participation rate would be so great with child care, that it will end up bringing in as much revenue as it costs.

I think you can see the big difference from claiming that increased government spending could boost productivity enough to pay for the interest on the increase in the deficit, to the increased government spending will pay for itself.

Anyway, very unfortunate when governments take their theories to an extreme level and believe it, but I think that's what happened here.

What's going on? Why am I agreeing with all of Benjamin Frank's takes all of a sudden??

In seriousness, I think there's a lot of merit to what you're suggesting. There's a lot of voodoo economics that passes for serious policy in this government.

I think it's naive to assume that governments primarily look at the evidence first and come to conclusions later, when in reality, I think more often than not it's the opposite. Hell, not just government, it goes for people too, we all do it to a certain extent. I think of it like how a lot of anti-vaccine people were (are) so eager to cite studies that support their views, implying that they made their decisions based on a thorough examination of the evidence, when in reality most made that decision for a variety of different reasons and offered post-hoc rationalization through cherrypicked studies that supported their choice. I'm sorry LPC, I know you guys hate anti-vaxxers, but over the past 9 years, you've been the economic antivaxxers. It really goes for so many of the major decisions they've made, especially on public finances. The budget was supposed to balance itself years ago, and maybe it would have, if not for factors outside of the government's control like Covid or Ukraine or whatever else. No, they're not at fault for those external factors, I'll give them that. But it's still your JOB. "Our policy will work if nothing goes wrong" is a hopelessly naive and stupid approach to governance, because guess what, things go wrong. All the time. You're making decisions on behalf of 40 million people, you don't get a pass for doing stupid things that would work in an ideal world that we don't live in.

It's also fundamentally unserious to cherry-pick the economic metrics that work in your favour and act like that's a reflection of economic health. If GDP growth were the only relevant metric, hey, they've done a pretty good job. Except it's not, GDP per capita is actually in a steady decline, and GDP per capita is a much more accurate reflection of how actual Canadians interact with the economy. If job growth were the only metric, then they've done a good job, as Canada has added millions of new jobs. But especially since 2020, those new jobs have been overwhelmingly in the public sector, while our private sector is one of the most unproductive in the developed world. "Job creation" is fundamentally different in the public vs private sector, because public sector job growth has zero to do with broader economic circumstances. Debt-to-GDP ratio seems like a reasonable metric of healthy control of public finances, until your debt skyrockets and GDP tanks due to a global pandemic and subsequent supply shortages, and suddenly that ratio is getting bigger and bigger. Bringing in more immigrants to fill labour shortages seems like a sensible policy, except those labour shortages are in very specific sectors that Canada's internal bureaucracies make prohibitively difficult for many immigrants to enter, so you end up with people competing for low-paying jobs that there's really not a shortage for. It just goes on and on and on. And now, with the Liberals desperately trying to hold onto power by announcing all sorts of programs, they're rationalizing it, in part, by saying that these things will actually have an economic windfall on the long term.

But then we come back to the self-rationalizing thing. I think the Liberals want to increase spending on social services on an ideological basis, just like Republicans with tax cuts. Except that's not a very compelling argument, especially not to their highly-educated base. So you throw around buzzwords like "evidence-based" and "research shows" and cite studies that align with what you wanted to do anyway.

I think this is spot on. However, I think what makes this government uniquely incompetent compared to previous Canadian governments is the current government's stubbornness in terms of looking at evidence. Trudeau's Liberals just put their fingers in their ears and ignore anything that economic evidence tells them.

Previous Canadian governments were at least pragmatic and recognized that in some circumstances, they needed to change course when the evidence told them they had to do so before it's too late, and they were willing to do so.

Just as an example, in 1993, Jean Chretien ran on a left-leaning platform of more government spending. However, in 1996, when it was clear Canada was on the verge of a debt crisis, Jean Chretien made the cuts necessary to return Canada to fiscal solvency. Partly as a result of that tough decision, Canada had two decades of economic prosperity compared to most of the rest of the developed world.

I can provide many other examples, but this is a stark contrast to Trudeau's ideological approach - in 2016 to 2019, during good economic times, Trudeau's preferred course of action was to spend, spend, spend. In 2020, during COVID, his solution was to spend, spend, spend ('interest rates are at record lows, Glen'). Of course, a lot of the COVID spending was justified, but a lot of it was also wasted (eg, ineligible people recieving CERB and ArriveCan app). Then post-COVID, when we had an inflation crisis, a cost of living crisis and stagnating growth, Trudeau's solution was - well, you know. 'You'll forgive me if I don't think about monetary policy.'

And now we have a housing crisis, terrible public services, extremely long wait times for healthcare, cost of living issues, people can't afford to make ends meet, and Trudeau's solution? You guessed it. Spend even more!

Not to mention, bureaucrats told him not to massively raise immigration when our economy and resources would not be able to handle it - and Trudeau, being the childish low-IQ ideologue he is, ignored them. He completely disregarded the evidence to try to implement his dumb utopian ideology!

Trudeau has completely destroyed the pragmatism of previous governments. Not to mention, lots of his government spending and expansion of the public sector has been extremely ineffective because of gatekeepers at various levels of government and the incompetent way in which some government departments are run, but rather than dealing with the core issues, he just threw money at the problem.

Anyway, I'm done ranting. Good night!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I’m sorry, but properly solving the housing crisis requires more than just deregulation. The way I see it, we need huge public investment too, which is an example of where “spend, spend, spend” is necessary. We ought to be spending on expanding training opportunities for skilled trades and construction jobs. We ought to be incentivizing larger, denser projects in cities (if I see another project of three-storey townhomes go up on major roads in Vancouver right next to SkyTrain stations, I’m going to lose it). We ought to be giving tax breaks on building supplies. We ought to be making it possible for every home that can have a laneway to build one.

Maybe it’s nuts, but solving this crisis should be a huge national project, and I still don’t see it. I know change can’t happen overnight, but tax the rich, spend, spend, spend… whatever it takes. This is a major crisis for every single young person who doesn’t want to live in Hicksville but doesn’t also have family wealth. There is zero optimism because we are working harder for so much less.

I believe the Conservatives will help supercharge the private sector in this direction—I do. But with Poillievre in charge, it’s the rich who are going to get richer and we’ll end up with more luxury condos than anything else.

[Upper Canada Tory]

I’m sorry, but properly solving the housing crisis requires more than just deregulation. The way I see it, we need huge public investment too, which is an example of where “spend, spend, spend” is necessary. We ought to be spending on expanding training opportunities for skilled trades and construction jobs. We ought to be incentivizing larger, denser projects in cities (if I see another project of three-storey townhomes go up on major roads in Vancouver right next to SkyTrain stations, I’m going to lose it). We ought to be giving tax breaks on building supplies. We ought to be making it possible for every home that can have a laneway to build one.

Maybe it’s nuts, but solving this crisis should be a huge national project, and I still don’t see it. I know change can’t happen overnight, but tax the rich, spend, spend, spend… whatever it takes. This is a major crisis for every single young person who doesn’t want to live in Hicksville but doesn’t also have family wealth. There is zero optimism because we are working harder for so much less.

I believe the Conservatives will help supercharge the private sector in this direction—I do. But with Poillievre in charge, it’s the rich who are going to get richer and we’ll end up with more luxury condos than anything else.

Keep in mind there has already been a great degree of public investment in recent years that hasn't gone anywhere.

I partly agree with you about the first sentence that some degree of public investment is needed, but the kind of investment we need is very different from the investment the Liberals are proposing, which is an attempt to pick winners and losers on the market (the federal government has decided that prefabricated homes are the one-size-fits-all solution for everybody - based on what? Because it makes Trudeau feel good?). Not to mention the Liberals' fixation with giving out low-interest loans to build these things, which will either result in higher inflation and/or higher interest rates over time.

Generally, the market should decide the kind of housing we need, minus some specific categories of housing like social housing that are needed for disadvantaged groups -  those should be funded by the government. However, I agree with you that we should definitely use our tax dollars to create an incentive system to build housing, not one that favours one type of housing over another, but allows housing to be built in general (like waiving the GST on construction, which, to their credit, the Liberals have done). Other things you mentioned, such as building denser projects in cities, can largely be achieved by favourable zoning laws.

The problem with a national housing project with huge amounts of spending is, as laddicus finch said, we are not in a Great Depression where such a thing is warranted - at best, it would result in wasted resources that could have been used in other areas, or at worst, it would cause a giant debt crisis that would slow down the economy by forcing the central bank to raise interest rates.

The argument that 'conservative policies will benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else' doesn't really pan out based on the record of previous conservative governments - Canada's Gini coefficient remained stable and actually fell slightly during the Harper years. Of course, it can be argued Poilievre will govern differently from Harper and no one has tried to properly solve the housing crisis yet, so we don't yet know how the implementation of proposed solutions will affect economic inequality. But I think it is a slightly premature assumption to make.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110013401&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2006&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2015&referencePeriods=20060101%2C20150101

[lfromnj]

I’m sorry, but properly solving the housing crisis requires more than just deregulation. The way I see it, we need huge public investment too, which is an example of where “spend, spend, spend” is necessary. We ought to be spending on expanding training opportunities for skilled trades and construction jobs. We ought to be incentivizing larger, denser projects in cities (if I see another project of three-storey townhomes go up on major roads in Vancouver right next to SkyTrain stations, I’m going to lose it). We ought to be giving tax breaks on building supplies. We ought to be making it possible for every home that can have a laneway to build one.

Maybe it’s nuts, but solving this crisis should be a huge national project, and I still don’t see it. I know change can’t happen overnight, but tax the rich, spend, spend, spend… whatever it takes. This is a major crisis for every single young person who doesn’t want to live in Hicksville but doesn’t also have family wealth. There is zero optimism because we are working harder for so much less.

I believe the Conservatives will help supercharge the private sector in this direction—I do. But with Poillievre in charge, it’s the rich who are going to get richer and we’ll end up with more luxury condos than anything else.

The thing is most new housing is usually just called luxury housing resulting in richer yuppies moving to these condos and lowering rents elsewhere.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I’m sorry, but properly solving the housing crisis requires more than just deregulation. The way I see it, we need huge public investment too, which is an example of where “spend, spend, spend” is necessary. We ought to be spending on expanding training opportunities for skilled trades and construction jobs. We ought to be incentivizing larger, denser projects in cities (if I see another project of three-storey townhomes go up on major roads in Vancouver right next to SkyTrain stations, I’m going to lose it). We ought to be giving tax breaks on building supplies. We ought to be making it possible for every home that can have a laneway to build one.

Maybe it’s nuts, but solving this crisis should be a huge national project, and I still don’t see it. I know change can’t happen overnight, but tax the rich, spend, spend, spend… whatever it takes. This is a major crisis for every single young person who doesn’t want to live in Hicksville but doesn’t also have family wealth. There is zero optimism because we are working harder for so much less.

I believe the Conservatives will help supercharge the private sector in this direction—I do. But with Poillievre in charge, it’s the rich who are going to get richer and we’ll end up with more luxury condos than anything else.

Keep in mind there has already been a great degree of public investment in recent years that hasn't gone anywhere.

I partly agree with you about the first sentence that some degree of public investment is needed, but the kind of investment we need is very different from the investment the Liberals are proposing, which is an attempt to pick winners and losers on the market (the federal government has decided that prefabricated homes are the one-size-fits-all solution for everybody - based on what? Because it makes Trudeau feel good?). Not to mention the Liberals' fixation with giving out low-interest loans to build these things, which will either result in higher inflation and/or higher interest rates over time.

Generally, the market should decide the kind of housing we need, minus some specific categories of housing like social housing that are needed for disadvantaged groups -  those should be funded by the government. However, I agree with you that we should definitely use our tax dollars to create an incentive system to build housing, not one that favours one type of housing over another, but allows housing to be built in general (like waiving the GST on construction, which, to their credit, the Liberals have done). Other things you mentioned, such as building denser projects in cities, can largely be achieved by favourable zoning laws.

The problem with a national housing project with huge amounts of spending is, as laddicus finch said, we are not in a Great Depression where such a thing is warranted - at best, it would result in wasted resources that could have been used in other areas, or at worst, it would cause a giant debt crisis that would slow down the economy by forcing the central bank to raise interest rates.

The argument that 'conservative policies will benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else' doesn't really pan out based on the record of previous conservative governments - Canada's Gini coefficient remained stable and actually fell slightly during the Harper years. Of course, it can be argued Poilievre will govern differently from Harper and no one has tried to properly solve the housing crisis yet, so we don't yet know how the implementation of proposed solutions will affect economic inequality. But I think it is a slightly premature assumption to make.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110013401&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2006&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2015&referencePeriods=20060101%2C20150101

The market should decide the kind of housing we need? No way—you lost me. The invisible hand has been at work for the last 15 years and it’s what has turned housing into an investment rather than a basic human need. “The market” is perfectly happy with squeezing as much rent out of people as it can so one class stays down and the other buys more houses to rent out and strengthen the squeeze even more. You talk about “specific disadvantaged groups,” but at this rate we’ve got almost an entire generation that is a specific disadvantaged group. You can make $100,000 a year and still never be able to afford a home! I know there are people who are much worse off, but any notion of the Canadian dream is dead. That’s what the “market” has done, and surely you aren’t going to argue that that’s a good thing for our country. We must restore that dream.

What we have now is capitalists weaponizing pain. It appears like people in the market are expressing preferences by “choosing” one type of housing over another, but that’s not what’s happening. People are stuck between a rock and a hard place flocking only to whatever is cheap. It’s a race to the bottom because everything is so expensive. We don’t need tax breaks going to people upgrading their mansions or building $2-million condo units. I want my government targeting what’s best for young people and young families, because right now their power in the market is not strong enough to shift much of anything. By all means, let’s have the government pick the winners and losers if it means we start to make a dent in the problems we’re facing.

You say we are not in a depression so such a massive project is not warranted. What we are in is a silent depression where the up-and-coming generation barely has any wealth. We are witnessing a slow-motion transition back to serfdom here where people can have a job and survive but never get ahead. They work to serve only the expansion of their corporate owners and landlords. Of course that won’t register as a depression, but it’s still not good. Fighting this development by giving people better places to live is not an example of resources wasted; it’s a socialist program that would lift people up. You scare-monger about a debt crisis, but there is most definitely enough wealth in this nation to re-level the playing field. You talk as if government spending is always going to lead to higher inflation, but let’s be clear that it can also raise productivity and increase supply depending on how that spending is targeted. So again, I’m really not on board with a lot of what you’re saying.

The bottom line is this: More and more Canadians are feeling like the tilted playing field in housing is actually an intended feature of the system, not a bug. Because we’ve lived under Trudeau’s government for so long now, people blame him for this system and turn naturally to the Conservatives for answers. That’s fair, of course, but I think it’s quite clear that capitalism-run-amok is mostly to blame here. More of that is not what’s going to help.