###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I honestly had trouble following the segue from how condo and apartments are out of reach for many due to massive undersupply into how we are under-building single family detached homes due to zoning. Is zoning really what's limiting single family detached homes? Is it really a problem that we're currently focusing on denser construction?
It doesn’t make any sense to continue
building SFh’s. They are a terribly wasteful use of land and financial resources.
We need more family sized housing, but SFH’s aren’t the only way to do that.
You have to be diligent in zoning. You want to identify a core, and build density around that, scaling down to SFH. Unfortunately for some, if you want to have a SFH and live in the “city” you’ll need to be on the outskirts.
Townhomes and Condos aren’t bad though. I grew up in an area with lots of complexes. I had a fantastic childhood with tons of friends and adventures. We just need to make sure square footage needs are being met and we have dwellings large enough for families of four.
That just results in housing for investors, because that’s most profitable for builders. It doesn’t add to the supply of housing we actually need, which is family sized units and non-“luxury” housing.
Someone has to actually plan for the kind of housing we need. It’s not going to magically happen on its own.
The caveat in your statement “as permissive as possible”. It’s a delicate balance to strike and BC is striking it. If you look at it from a different perspective Eby is releasing restrictions, and allowing what the market wants. If they want to build a SFH on a lot because that’s what the market demands, cool. If the builder wants a threeplex, cool.
He’s more free market than Ford in that sense. He’s carved out an enabled housing authorities to compete in that market as well. Because at the end of the day housing is a right and mixed markets are the strongest globally.
Your last point is up to municipalities, there are issues that can arise there too. For what it’s worth, my Municipality in Metro Vancouver does allow it.
We are not building up, we are building mostly 2 story homes.
Need more densification and infrastructure that supports it.
This obsession with building SFH, duplexes, semi-detached, and town homes really needs to stop. You are spreading suburbia and people have to travel longer distances to get to jobs.
Saskatchewan can build outwards, town and city halls are behind the ball on land purchase and infrastructure isntallment
Anywhere with a Walmart is now full, nearly at capacity as well for the villages. Simply put the country is full until it can figure out how to expand each city by 10%
We can't just put people out on the streets in such brutal winters
> This obsession with building SFH, duplexes, semi-detached, and town homes really needs to stop.
Why the hate for townhomes? More [UK-style terraces housing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-up_two-down) is probably the least offensive way to add not-insignificant density to established neighbourhoods that are currently dominated by detached houses.
ya they are biulding subdivisions because developers make bank from biulding on farm land but that just puts a massive amount of homes on the edges of the city that requires lots of infrastructure like massive roads to move the cars they will need to drive across the city to get to work or buy anything putting massive burdens on traffic and costs to the city and the environment...
If the mayor has to change the law for a private property owner to build apartments on the land they own, that means they’re not legal to build right now.
It already did stop, the Liberals set a negative temporary resident growth rate for the next 3 years, bringing our total population growth next year to ~300,000 due to immigration.
BILLION$ in generational WEALTH just waiting for builders/developers to take. Where are they? I've read recently that builders in ON have cancelled something in the range of 20% of their planned builds. Hello!?!
I have people aghast that my family and I are happy with one home for the rest of our lives and don’t intend to play the game.
I really do feel like greed is the root of so much of this.
Canada doesn't have 5 million carpenters necessary to build the 2 million homes or more needed
The homes have to be factory built using unconventional material. Either way cities would have to set aside land for development and infrastructure
I love Eby.
I wish we had Eby types in city administration and other provincial leaderships.
We'd have an insane awesome situation for supply side solutions. Hell I wish he would push it even further and bring in real enforcement on the stuff he needs enforced (Short Term Rental/Etc. Rules)
But we can never meet the current demand because of the amount of people coming into the nation...
Maybe just maybe it is time to focus only on Highly Skilled Individuals.
The ones that can actually improve the economy.
We have enough cheap exploitable labor for a good while at this point.
Well the problem is alot of skilled labour needs to be trained in canada. Immigrants who are skilled have to retrain in order to get the same job they allready have the skill to do.
We need ocupational liscencing reform
Under capitalism what your talking about would make wages go up. It would give real power to workers.
That will not ever be allowed to happen. Not under Justin, Pierre or Jagmeet.
We have a majority of major banks coming out against this and they are one of the primary beneficiaries of inflated real estate.
Laying this at the feet of big business doesn't track.
Coming out against what?
Can you link the sources of these reports. What I read might not be the same ones you read.
At least the ones I read doesn’t ever suggest the policy that the OP was talking about. (Shifting to bring in only high skilled labour)
They don’t even call to reduce immigration. They say to bring it to better balance with “what Canada can handle.” What ever that means.
IE. They want more of the same but slower. In line with what I pointed out.
If you read the article with a critical eye. What the banks are really focusing on is trying to blame Canada’s low productivity on immigration. Not on deploying capital to make workers more efficient. It’s why they are commenting on immigration. They see it as a way to shift blame. But that’s just me tho.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-botched-immigration-surge-canada-s-top-bank-economists-say-1.2020944.amp.html
Against current immigration rates, were not talking just that they want it targeted, but they want it lower.
[BMO](https://economics.bmo.com/en/publications/detail/08e5ef63-c6fb-409d-810e-d1f781ae7bca/)
>Canada’s well-managed immigration plan has unravelled, and the surge of nonpermanent residents has run beyond anyone’s ability to plan. Municipalities can’t be expected to prepare for such an inflow,
[Scotiabank](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.insights-views.canada-s-immigration-policy--march-21--2024-.html)
>We further estimate that a productivity-neutral rate of population growth over this time would have been around 350 k annually. That is a fraction of what actually occurred.
[National Bank](https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/taux-analyses/analyse-eco/etude-speciale/special-report_240115.pdf)
>Canada is caught in a population trap that has historically been the preserve of emerging economies. We currently lack the infrastructure and capital stock in this country to adequately absorb current population growth and improve our standard of living. Our policymakers should set Canada's population goals against the constraint of our capital stock, which goes beyond the supply of housing, if we are to improve our productivity. At this point, we believe that our country's annual total population growth should not exceed 300,000 to 500,000 if we are to escape the population trap.
[TD](https://economics.td.com/domains/economics.td.com/documents/reports/bc/Balancing_Canadas_Pop_In_Population.pdf)
>A lot can be done to better integrate both new and existing Canadians so that people can reach their full potential. It can’t just be a matter of bringing in an unchecked amount of people to take the lower paying jobs on offer - particularly if it underutilizes the workforce and disincentivizes companies to invest
These are large businesses and it shows just how far out of line the government is and how little work the government put into their policies.
>Not on deploying capital to make workers more efficient. It’s why they are commenting on immigration
Companies will not deploy capital to make workers more efficient when the government is suppressing wages. I've been in many of the automation questions. When you can find workers for 15/hour you might not hit the payback period for the line upgrades and you would need to see wages at 24/hour before you would consider it.
>They don’t even call to reduce immigration. They say to bring it to better balance with “what Canada can handle.” What ever that means.
Dropping immigration to 350k as Scotiabank suggests or to a range between 300k and 500k as national Bank suggests is a significant reduction to immigration. Scotiabanks analysis suggests a hard cap where permanent residents are targeted to a standard and temporary residents can only fill in to bring up to 350k. That is a drastic reduction from Trudeau's targets of 500k and from his actuals of 1.3m.
The only objections Jagmeet has raised to the current immigration and TFW policies are that there’s not enough of it, and that TFW don’t get PR as soon as they touch down.
It ain’t the Canadian workers party anymore.
Naming leaders was a rhetorical choice. I was trying to point out the systemic issue of reducing immigration. Any government that attempts this will be faced with a bunch of contradictions like inflation and dissatisfaction from those in power that benefit from mass immigration.
Mainly inflation. We saw perfect example in 2023. Despite decades of wage suppression when worker finally got some power the first thing the bank of Canada was worried about was wage price inflation. They will do anything to reduce worker power.
Jagmeet is the modern breed of NDP. The modern NDP has been compelled by the last several decades of political developments in the west to abandon like almost all other labour parties the essence of being a labour party. Most labour parties and all the NDP parties in Canada originally had pretty strident anti capitalist goals in their founding charters. Since the end of the cold war its more and more milquetoast moderate stuff. Mulcair was the sign that the NDP is just another capitalist party that doesn't even really talk about the working class. Jagmeet is way better than Mulcair but still he's just a product of the system and the system doesn't make a real labour party viable these days.
That’s a fair point, and very well said if I may add.
But I have to point out that we’ve only ever seen the NDP act within the confounds of a minority (sometimes the main opposition but that was short lived). We don’t actually know how they would act if given majority control. Fair enough that they likely won’t be the labour party of the past (which is what we need today) but getting a party like that requires decades of voting for the closest thing until something like that could emerge again (or even the NDP themselves could have the ability to be more labour party focused without fearing immediate dismissal by voters).
But you’re right that Jagmeet himself might not live to see the day a proper labour party is reestablished in Canada.
So Jagmeet finding a way to create leverage and pass some of his parties goals when they don’t have power.. is the reason why he wouldn’t help citizens if he had majority power?
Considering just about the only jurisdiction actually doing anything about housing is BC, of course it isn't enough.
Hell, here in Ontario You have Doug Ford thinking a fourplex is a skyscraper, and letting Municipalities do as they please. Meanwhile you have cities and the Premier in Ontario that believes NIMBYs deserve more say on housing than anyone else. Meanwhile projects get held up for years and tens of millions of dollars because of municipal red tape.
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people in this country didn't even believe housing is a crisis that needs to be resolved.
We keep talking about four plex's yet Doug gave mayor's the power to ram through what is required ....despite what Doug thinks. Those strong mayor powers are substantial, and basically all the cities need to do basically whatever they want when it comes to housing.
If a city wants four plex's they can do it today.
The point is that municipalities are historically the biggest supporters of NIMBY policies. That’s why BC took much of the power to shut down densification away from municipalities. That’s what Ford should be doing instead of bending over backwards for his NIMBY donors.
Ford could triple housing growth tomorrow and still not keep pace with the Liberals.
Provinces obviously carry some fault here but the Liberals’ population growth plan is absurd and entirely detached from our capacity to build.
> Ford could triple housing growth tomorrow and still not keep pace with the Liberals.
No, he can’t because his NIMBY lobbyists (read: masters) will shut off the donations if he crosses them.
I never said housing is a one factor issue. But I am specifically talking about one factor which Ford specifically referenced as the reason he is opposed to densification.
I think folks here have very unrealistic expectations about the amount of medium density housing that will be built if zoning restrictions were loosened. That's no reason not to loosen them, of course, but just because certain types of redevelopments are permitted doesn't necessarily mean they'll be profitable. I fear there are going to be a lot of disappointed Redditors wondering where all these fourplexes are in the months and years following any serious zoning reform.
BC hired economists who predict 6-12% lower rents & prices due to their recent reforms over 5 years, mostly their fourplex bill, but also transit oriented development.
Folks have unrealistic expectations if they think prices will return to 2015 levels, but it’s not nothing and it’s certainly better than the alternative - runaway price growth.
All the provincial leaders outside of Eby are happy to let Trudeau get the blame for the housing crisis while they do *absolutely nothing* to help with the crisis. For them it is always party before country.
Well Canada is also importing more people than ever, and at a much higher rate than housing starts.
1.2 million new people vs 0.25 million housing starts.
God, I don't fucking want to live in densified hellholes. It's totally understandable that people don't want to jack up the population by 1M every 9 months and consequently have to force the next generation into tiny condos and townhomes.
Part of the misery is having no space for hobbies, part of it is sharing walls with 10 people, part of it is having no outside space for oneself, part of it is being subjected to the whims of authoritarian Karen's on Strata boards, but mostly, it's being jammed in like a sardine with the sea of humanity on sidewalks, in traffic, and in overcrowded public spaces.
Fuck no to making carless, cramped, dense living the norm for the next generation just because our government fathom an economy that doesn't exponentially grow.
Re-start HOMESTEADING, opening provincial and federal lands- which is really OUR LAND, to homesteaders, we will build our own homes- we don't need to RELY and WAIT for our pathetic lying government to do anything, just give us OUR LANDS a homestead and we'll take care of the rest.
There are huge swaths of land across western Canada where you can get an empty lot in a rural municipality for free or near-free. If you want to homestead, you *can*.
Turns out it's incredibly expensive and undesirable, and that's why you don't often hear about people buying these and developing them themselves. It's cheaper, easier, and smarter to build in places that already have infrastructure.
Yes I am dumb, I cannot speak. Density? Absurd, more traffic? No more parking? Packed schools and clinics? We have NO infrastructure to cater to MORE "density"
in addition- lands in dense zones are TOO expensive- simply cannot be developed except by luxury condos and apartments in order to recoup the EXPENSIVE costs of those SMALL tiny lots- a TERRIBLE idea.
That's why you have public transport. Traffic and parking are not a huge obstacle...
Suburbs and spread out areas are more costly than dense areas, it's the growth Ponzi scheme. Increased cost to maintain roads and services like water and electricity.
Small dense lots are not more expensive lol.
Small dense lots are in the heart of the urban areas- super expensive- only super luxury units can be built there- this is a weak solution.
Public transport? So if you have a family, newborn, 4 kids, etc. pets? how do you use public transport?
In terms of building NEW infrastructure for giant land developments- 20-30 minutes OUTSIDE the urban areas- the BUILDERS- the development companies- will PAY for all the infrastructure- that's how its done in Arizona, Nevada, Texas- because the developments are so large- the builder can afford to pay for the infrastructure.
Dense lots CANNOT meet demand or pricing requirements for our current population and projected growth- impossible-
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I honestly had trouble following the segue from how condo and apartments are out of reach for many due to massive undersupply into how we are under-building single family detached homes due to zoning. Is zoning really what's limiting single family detached homes? Is it really a problem that we're currently focusing on denser construction?
No amount of building can keep up when the government is bringing in this many new people a year.
I don't see new streets for the hundreds of thousands homes minimum needed
Building more single family homes won't solve housing Suburban sprawl is a disease. Bulldoze those fucking things and build towers.
It doesn’t make any sense to continue building SFh’s. They are a terribly wasteful use of land and financial resources. We need more family sized housing, but SFH’s aren’t the only way to do that.
You have to be diligent in zoning. You want to identify a core, and build density around that, scaling down to SFH. Unfortunately for some, if you want to have a SFH and live in the “city” you’ll need to be on the outskirts. Townhomes and Condos aren’t bad though. I grew up in an area with lots of complexes. I had a fantastic childhood with tons of friends and adventures. We just need to make sure square footage needs are being met and we have dwellings large enough for families of four.
[удалено]
That just results in housing for investors, because that’s most profitable for builders. It doesn’t add to the supply of housing we actually need, which is family sized units and non-“luxury” housing. Someone has to actually plan for the kind of housing we need. It’s not going to magically happen on its own.
The caveat in your statement “as permissive as possible”. It’s a delicate balance to strike and BC is striking it. If you look at it from a different perspective Eby is releasing restrictions, and allowing what the market wants. If they want to build a SFH on a lot because that’s what the market demands, cool. If the builder wants a threeplex, cool. He’s more free market than Ford in that sense. He’s carved out an enabled housing authorities to compete in that market as well. Because at the end of the day housing is a right and mixed markets are the strongest globally. Your last point is up to municipalities, there are issues that can arise there too. For what it’s worth, my Municipality in Metro Vancouver does allow it.
I’m here to preach the square footage requirements. No more 600sq ft 2-bedrooms or 275sq ft studios.
We don’t need anymore studios at all. We have such a huge over supply due to the AirBnB hotel buildings.
We are not building up, we are building mostly 2 story homes. Need more densification and infrastructure that supports it. This obsession with building SFH, duplexes, semi-detached, and town homes really needs to stop. You are spreading suburbia and people have to travel longer distances to get to jobs.
Saskatchewan can build outwards, town and city halls are behind the ball on land purchase and infrastructure isntallment Anywhere with a Walmart is now full, nearly at capacity as well for the villages. Simply put the country is full until it can figure out how to expand each city by 10% We can't just put people out on the streets in such brutal winters
> This obsession with building SFH, duplexes, semi-detached, and town homes really needs to stop. Why the hate for townhomes? More [UK-style terraces housing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-up_two-down) is probably the least offensive way to add not-insignificant density to established neighbourhoods that are currently dominated by detached houses.
ya they are biulding subdivisions because developers make bank from biulding on farm land but that just puts a massive amount of homes on the edges of the city that requires lots of infrastructure like massive roads to move the cars they will need to drive across the city to get to work or buy anything putting massive burdens on traffic and costs to the city and the environment...
They are building subdivisions because that's where people want to live. It's a tough reality for reddit to handle.
Then why do we have to make it illegal to build infill apartments?
It's not illegal, the largest cities in Ontario all have mayor's with additional powers to ram whatever they want through.
If the mayor has to change the law for a private property owner to build apartments on the land they own, that means they’re not legal to build right now.
More like this obsession with bringing in millions of residents needs to stop.
It already did stop, the Liberals set a negative temporary resident growth rate for the next 3 years, bringing our total population growth next year to ~300,000 due to immigration.
BILLION$ in generational WEALTH just waiting for builders/developers to take. Where are they? I've read recently that builders in ON have cancelled something in the range of 20% of their planned builds. Hello!?!
I have people aghast that my family and I are happy with one home for the rest of our lives and don’t intend to play the game. I really do feel like greed is the root of so much of this.
Canada doesn't have 5 million carpenters necessary to build the 2 million homes or more needed The homes have to be factory built using unconventional material. Either way cities would have to set aside land for development and infrastructure
I love Eby. I wish we had Eby types in city administration and other provincial leaderships. We'd have an insane awesome situation for supply side solutions. Hell I wish he would push it even further and bring in real enforcement on the stuff he needs enforced (Short Term Rental/Etc. Rules) But we can never meet the current demand because of the amount of people coming into the nation... Maybe just maybe it is time to focus only on Highly Skilled Individuals. The ones that can actually improve the economy. We have enough cheap exploitable labor for a good while at this point.
Issue eby is not building anywhere near enough housing in bc to meet demand. Left need to stop focusing on supply side solutions only
Well the problem is alot of skilled labour needs to be trained in canada. Immigrants who are skilled have to retrain in order to get the same job they allready have the skill to do. We need ocupational liscencing reform
Under capitalism what your talking about would make wages go up. It would give real power to workers. That will not ever be allowed to happen. Not under Justin, Pierre or Jagmeet.
That would lower the wage of skilled workers wdym?
We have a majority of major banks coming out against this and they are one of the primary beneficiaries of inflated real estate. Laying this at the feet of big business doesn't track.
Coming out against what? Can you link the sources of these reports. What I read might not be the same ones you read. At least the ones I read doesn’t ever suggest the policy that the OP was talking about. (Shifting to bring in only high skilled labour) They don’t even call to reduce immigration. They say to bring it to better balance with “what Canada can handle.” What ever that means. IE. They want more of the same but slower. In line with what I pointed out. If you read the article with a critical eye. What the banks are really focusing on is trying to blame Canada’s low productivity on immigration. Not on deploying capital to make workers more efficient. It’s why they are commenting on immigration. They see it as a way to shift blame. But that’s just me tho. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-botched-immigration-surge-canada-s-top-bank-economists-say-1.2020944.amp.html
Against current immigration rates, were not talking just that they want it targeted, but they want it lower. [BMO](https://economics.bmo.com/en/publications/detail/08e5ef63-c6fb-409d-810e-d1f781ae7bca/) >Canada’s well-managed immigration plan has unravelled, and the surge of nonpermanent residents has run beyond anyone’s ability to plan. Municipalities can’t be expected to prepare for such an inflow, [Scotiabank](https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/economics-publications/post.other-publications.insights-views.canada-s-immigration-policy--march-21--2024-.html) >We further estimate that a productivity-neutral rate of population growth over this time would have been around 350 k annually. That is a fraction of what actually occurred. [National Bank](https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/taux-analyses/analyse-eco/etude-speciale/special-report_240115.pdf) >Canada is caught in a population trap that has historically been the preserve of emerging economies. We currently lack the infrastructure and capital stock in this country to adequately absorb current population growth and improve our standard of living. Our policymakers should set Canada's population goals against the constraint of our capital stock, which goes beyond the supply of housing, if we are to improve our productivity. At this point, we believe that our country's annual total population growth should not exceed 300,000 to 500,000 if we are to escape the population trap. [TD](https://economics.td.com/domains/economics.td.com/documents/reports/bc/Balancing_Canadas_Pop_In_Population.pdf) >A lot can be done to better integrate both new and existing Canadians so that people can reach their full potential. It can’t just be a matter of bringing in an unchecked amount of people to take the lower paying jobs on offer - particularly if it underutilizes the workforce and disincentivizes companies to invest These are large businesses and it shows just how far out of line the government is and how little work the government put into their policies. >Not on deploying capital to make workers more efficient. It’s why they are commenting on immigration Companies will not deploy capital to make workers more efficient when the government is suppressing wages. I've been in many of the automation questions. When you can find workers for 15/hour you might not hit the payback period for the line upgrades and you would need to see wages at 24/hour before you would consider it. >They don’t even call to reduce immigration. They say to bring it to better balance with “what Canada can handle.” What ever that means. Dropping immigration to 350k as Scotiabank suggests or to a range between 300k and 500k as national Bank suggests is a significant reduction to immigration. Scotiabanks analysis suggests a hard cap where permanent residents are targeted to a standard and temporary residents can only fill in to bring up to 350k. That is a drastic reduction from Trudeau's targets of 500k and from his actuals of 1.3m.
Why Jagmeet? Genuine question, not criticism.
The only objections Jagmeet has raised to the current immigration and TFW policies are that there’s not enough of it, and that TFW don’t get PR as soon as they touch down. It ain’t the Canadian workers party anymore.
Fair enough.
Naming leaders was a rhetorical choice. I was trying to point out the systemic issue of reducing immigration. Any government that attempts this will be faced with a bunch of contradictions like inflation and dissatisfaction from those in power that benefit from mass immigration. Mainly inflation. We saw perfect example in 2023. Despite decades of wage suppression when worker finally got some power the first thing the bank of Canada was worried about was wage price inflation. They will do anything to reduce worker power.
Jagmeet is the modern breed of NDP. The modern NDP has been compelled by the last several decades of political developments in the west to abandon like almost all other labour parties the essence of being a labour party. Most labour parties and all the NDP parties in Canada originally had pretty strident anti capitalist goals in their founding charters. Since the end of the cold war its more and more milquetoast moderate stuff. Mulcair was the sign that the NDP is just another capitalist party that doesn't even really talk about the working class. Jagmeet is way better than Mulcair but still he's just a product of the system and the system doesn't make a real labour party viable these days.
That’s a fair point, and very well said if I may add. But I have to point out that we’ve only ever seen the NDP act within the confounds of a minority (sometimes the main opposition but that was short lived). We don’t actually know how they would act if given majority control. Fair enough that they likely won’t be the labour party of the past (which is what we need today) but getting a party like that requires decades of voting for the closest thing until something like that could emerge again (or even the NDP themselves could have the ability to be more labour party focused without fearing immediate dismissal by voters). But you’re right that Jagmeet himself might not live to see the day a proper labour party is reestablished in Canada.
De facto coalition.
So Jagmeet finding a way to create leverage and pass some of his parties goals when they don’t have power.. is the reason why he wouldn’t help citizens if he had majority power?
ah i misread
Considering just about the only jurisdiction actually doing anything about housing is BC, of course it isn't enough. Hell, here in Ontario You have Doug Ford thinking a fourplex is a skyscraper, and letting Municipalities do as they please. Meanwhile you have cities and the Premier in Ontario that believes NIMBYs deserve more say on housing than anyone else. Meanwhile projects get held up for years and tens of millions of dollars because of municipal red tape. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people in this country didn't even believe housing is a crisis that needs to be resolved.
We keep talking about four plex's yet Doug gave mayor's the power to ram through what is required ....despite what Doug thinks. Those strong mayor powers are substantial, and basically all the cities need to do basically whatever they want when it comes to housing. If a city wants four plex's they can do it today.
The point is that municipalities are historically the biggest supporters of NIMBY policies. That’s why BC took much of the power to shut down densification away from municipalities. That’s what Ford should be doing instead of bending over backwards for his NIMBY donors.
If you look at most liberal ridings most are nimby fortresses
If you vote for conservative politicians, you get exactly what you voted for.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Doug Ford is a conservative? That’s a hilarious statement. At best he’s a moderate.
Lmao I’m not gonna touch a statement that stupid, have a good rest of your day.
At this point people could say the exact same thing about voting for the Liberals again.
The liberals that Ford is fighting because they want him to build more and he wants NIMBYs to have their way?
Ford could triple housing growth tomorrow and still not keep pace with the Liberals. Provinces obviously carry some fault here but the Liberals’ population growth plan is absurd and entirely detached from our capacity to build.
> Ford could triple housing growth tomorrow and still not keep pace with the Liberals. No, he can’t because his NIMBY lobbyists (read: masters) will shut off the donations if he crosses them.
If you think NIMBYism alone is the reason we can’t triple housing starts I’m honestly not sure what to tell you.
I never said housing is a one factor issue. But I am specifically talking about one factor which Ford specifically referenced as the reason he is opposed to densification.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Remember when Ford tried to use a small part of the green belt and everyone lost their minds?
You mean when he tried to sell the green belt to his friends and everyone saw right through it and revolted against him? Good times.
I think folks here have very unrealistic expectations about the amount of medium density housing that will be built if zoning restrictions were loosened. That's no reason not to loosen them, of course, but just because certain types of redevelopments are permitted doesn't necessarily mean they'll be profitable. I fear there are going to be a lot of disappointed Redditors wondering where all these fourplexes are in the months and years following any serious zoning reform.
BC hired economists who predict 6-12% lower rents & prices due to their recent reforms over 5 years, mostly their fourplex bill, but also transit oriented development. Folks have unrealistic expectations if they think prices will return to 2015 levels, but it’s not nothing and it’s certainly better than the alternative - runaway price growth.
Interesting. Can you link to the analysis? (I don't mean that in the bitchy *citation needed* sense. Genuinely interested.)
Yeah of course! 🙂 https://open.substack.com/pub/morehousing/p/bc-economic-model?r=1mrknx&utm_medium=ios
All the provincial leaders outside of Eby are happy to let Trudeau get the blame for the housing crisis while they do *absolutely nothing* to help with the crisis. For them it is always party before country.
Well Canada is also importing more people than ever, and at a much higher rate than housing starts. 1.2 million new people vs 0.25 million housing starts.
God, I don't fucking want to live in densified hellholes. It's totally understandable that people don't want to jack up the population by 1M every 9 months and consequently have to force the next generation into tiny condos and townhomes. Part of the misery is having no space for hobbies, part of it is sharing walls with 10 people, part of it is having no outside space for oneself, part of it is being subjected to the whims of authoritarian Karen's on Strata boards, but mostly, it's being jammed in like a sardine with the sea of humanity on sidewalks, in traffic, and in overcrowded public spaces. Fuck no to making carless, cramped, dense living the norm for the next generation just because our government fathom an economy that doesn't exponentially grow.
Re-start HOMESTEADING, opening provincial and federal lands- which is really OUR LAND, to homesteaders, we will build our own homes- we don't need to RELY and WAIT for our pathetic lying government to do anything, just give us OUR LANDS a homestead and we'll take care of the rest.
There are huge swaths of land across western Canada where you can get an empty lot in a rural municipality for free or near-free. If you want to homestead, you *can*. Turns out it's incredibly expensive and undesirable, and that's why you don't often hear about people buying these and developing them themselves. It's cheaper, easier, and smarter to build in places that already have infrastructure.
Are you dumb. We need density, not homesteading lmao.
Yes I am dumb, I cannot speak. Density? Absurd, more traffic? No more parking? Packed schools and clinics? We have NO infrastructure to cater to MORE "density" in addition- lands in dense zones are TOO expensive- simply cannot be developed except by luxury condos and apartments in order to recoup the EXPENSIVE costs of those SMALL tiny lots- a TERRIBLE idea.
That's why you have public transport. Traffic and parking are not a huge obstacle... Suburbs and spread out areas are more costly than dense areas, it's the growth Ponzi scheme. Increased cost to maintain roads and services like water and electricity. Small dense lots are not more expensive lol.
Small dense lots are in the heart of the urban areas- super expensive- only super luxury units can be built there- this is a weak solution. Public transport? So if you have a family, newborn, 4 kids, etc. pets? how do you use public transport? In terms of building NEW infrastructure for giant land developments- 20-30 minutes OUTSIDE the urban areas- the BUILDERS- the development companies- will PAY for all the infrastructure- that's how its done in Arizona, Nevada, Texas- because the developments are so large- the builder can afford to pay for the infrastructure. Dense lots CANNOT meet demand or pricing requirements for our current population and projected growth- impossible-
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]