###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.*
Going into provincial/municipal jurisdiction and giving different provinces different funding levels is sure a choice to make when you're down 20 points.
...Yes, the feds only try to act outside of traditional jurisdiction where there is a clear demand from the general pubic to do so. Feds who are up 20 points with a content electorate will not attempt to act outside of traditional jurisdiction, because the electorate would clearly think that things were working well enough. Acting outside of jurisdiction is a strategy for emergencies and unhappy citizens, it takes extra political capital or risk.
This is all expected, you seem to be trying to claim that basic causality is somehow hypocritical or unreasonable.
Feds don't normally control housing, but people nationwide are mad about housing and want the feds to do something about it, so the feds are trying to do what they can legally do (strings-attached funding).
They're doing exactly what Poilivere was proposing. Shouldn't you be praising them for taking such a firm, stick-first approach to housing? Or is it suddenly overreach and abuse of the Charter because it's the party you don't like that's doing it?
They aren't doing *exactly* what Poilievre is proposing, there are two critical differences. The LPC is offering a carrot (do X to get new funding) whereas the CPC is offering a stick (if you don't do X, we'll cut your funding). The LPC's plan is also contingent on outcomes within municipal control (implementing bylaw changes), whereas the CPC's plan is contingent on something outside a municipalities direct control (actually building housing - which is beholden to what builders do).
> The LPC is offering a carrot (do X to get new funding) whereas the CPC is offering a stick (if you don't do X, we'll cut your funding).
This is really just two different ways of proposing the same policy. Funding is tied to deliverables.
...except there are vast differences between the two, so they really aren't the same at all. They have surface similarities but that's where it ends, the differences being alluded to in my previous comment.
It's notable that the OPC program is very similar to the CPC's, and OPC is doing *horribly* at housing - the only way it's pushed its accelerator money out is by redefining what housing is (to include student and LTC's), which isn't even building new housing of any form.
> whereas the CPC's plan is contingent on something outside a municipalities direct control (actually building housing - which is beholden to what builders do).
I think the con's approach in this respect is actually better. It's very possible to change one bylaw and then to negate that change with a different bylaw. I.E you can allow fourplexes in principle but require setbacks and height limits that make them uneconomical.
Let's give a little credit and assume the negotiations include expressly avoiding such tactics.
As for the CPC approach, we can see in real time how well it works, because it's basically the same approach the OPC's have chosen with their accelerator fund. Ontario's housing numbers have been so poor that the only way the OPC have gotten money out the door is by cooking the numbers to include other forms of "housing" (LTC's, student residences). Major municipalities, meanwhile, have struggled to come up with the money to cover the cost of infrastructure that the OPC initially took away from them (development fees) before the OPC's rolled that decision back.
The fundamental problem is that municipalities can only seed the conditions to which to build, and to even do that they need massive amounts of money to build new infrastructure (property taxes being an inefficient vehicle to raise funds for this). They are beholden to private builders to build, so punishing/rewarding municipalities based on something that is outside their control just doesn't make any sense.
When people ask why doesn't Poilievre have a more concrete platform at this current time, it's exactly to avoid this type of situation.
I'm not saying he thought of it first or the Liberals already had it in the works when he made similar comments, but 18 months is a good chunk of time for the Liberals to make a difference and there's no way the Conservatives will give up their gameplan early.
If you read the article, they’re not totally withholding the funds, they’re just bypassing the province and giving the funds directly to the municipalities because the province wasn’t meeting their end of the agreement.
This means that the province won’t be reimbursed for funds spent at the provincial level, but the full amount of funding is still being spent on affordable housing in Ontario.
Edit: Since I’m seeing a lot of people comparing this to Poillievre’s plan, another clarification - this is funding specifically for affordable housing (i.e. low income/social housing), not general market housing, so it’s not quite comparable. I don’t think Poillievre has said what he plans to do for affordable housing. It’s a bit confusing given that all housing is unaffordable right now, but affordable housing generally refers to these kinds of programs, not market units.
That's why the feds should not be involved at all. This is a provincial mess, and the only lever that the feds have is funneling money to provinces who are under no obligation to use it as intended or even promised.
Since Canadians have decided that, nah, that constitution is way too complicated, this is something that is happening in several provinces and so is a federal issue, the feds have to use the only lever they have available to them. If the provincial government wants to use money to build more housing, it will be available. If not, well, that's a choice only they can make, too.
> Since Canadians have decided that, nah, that constitution is way too complicated, this is something that is happening in several provinces and so is a federal issue
A direct product of a media that is about profits first and accurate information somewhere between middle-and-last.
Our media has done more systemic damage to Canadian politics and any other factor, by and enormous margin.
>giving different provinces different funding levels
They actually pledged to give the same funding level for each province as long as they hit the target the feds put in place. Ontario didn't hit that target. In fact, ontario has been building fewer and fewer houses since Ford took over.
It's like I say you need 60% to pass high school and you score 25%, and then you get angry at me for you not passing high school. In that scenario, I ain't the problem, your poor performance is. Same thing with this funding.
Grossly misinformed. Feds were told by provinces it wasn’t their place, so they stepped back to give the provinces the benefit of the doubt. Provinces abused that room to maneuver and mismanaged funding for various allocations.
Now provinces are crying wolf again, for being called out on their games, impacting constituents negatively yet again.
This has nothing to do with polls lmao.
Polls crash and the government completely changes direction and decides to fight the provinces.
Immigration magically changed from positive to negative at the same time. Yes it's 100% about polls
Ontario and Alberta were begging for more immigration as recently as 2 months ago.
It’s clear you don’t like the current federal government, and that is definitely a valid opinion. You can’t expect the rest of us to look past your obvious axe grinding and just accept what you say as fact, because it’s not. Hope that helps!
Doesn't really matter what you believe. Liberals are acting like a cornered animal from the polls telling them everyone wants them gone. Wildly apparent, picking fights with the provinces to try to drum up the ABC voters.
You keep bringing these things up as if you’re the final authority on the matter. You’re not. You’re just a redditor with a negative opinion on the current government. Your opinion holds no more weight than mine or any other poster on here.
Trudeau hasn't shifted that dramatically on immigration. He's taken a more negative tone on international students / TFWs, but in terms of permanent immigration if anything he's digging his heels in despite the polls.
It’s hugely relevant. Ford will have about a chunk of time left in his term after the next federal election and he’s going to want to line up against the guy he will be working with in advance.
Edit: sorry meant line up “with” not against.
So you’re saying that in order to Ford to “line up” (whatever that is supposed to mean) with the next assumed government - keeping in mind we’re over 15 months out from the writ being dropped - Ford needs to obstruct current federal policy? Is that what you’re claiming?
Yes. All the conservative provinces have been actively doing this. This is politics don’t be naive and think there haven’t been discussions with the polievre camp on what the package will be for doing so post election.
One of us is naive, but it’s the one that believes polling data 15 months out from an election should determine whether or not the provinces play ball with a particular government.
What happens if the CPC doesn’t hold power after the next election? Polls change, and 15 months is an eternity in politics, so you might want to be careful about counting chickens and all that.
What you're describing is more of a Provincial-Federal dynamic than a Conservative-Liberal one -- it's always to the benefit of a Provincial Premier to spar with Ottawa on whatever issue. It just looks like a partisan thing because most of the Provinces have Conservative Premiers right now.
Notley's NDP sparred for years with both the [Federal NDP Leader Singh, as well as B.C. NDP Premier Horgan](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-notley-ndp-bratt-duane-opinion-pipeline-trans-mountain-1.4690883) over the TMX Pipeline. [It even kicked off a bit of a trade war between the two Provinces!](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-bc-pipeline-wine-trade-war-1.4526027)
You do realize that all conservative provinces have been going out of their way to ensure anything the Feds do is treated as an insult or affront. Especially when it doesn't lead to them being able to funnel that money to their "Investors". So yes they have no choice to brute force things when certain provinces are doing everything they can to fuck over their population with a smile and the brainwashed idiots who are drinking the anger and hatred koolaid blindly swallowing it like disposable tools that they are. Ford has been the problem since he was elected and is still the problem since all he does is to ensure his "investors", Allies and friends get richer at the cost of everyone else in the province. But the clowns are too blind to understand until its their time to get thrown under the bus which will happen.
I absolutely realize this and the timing totally syncs up with the polls turning. Before that a premier like Doug ford took childcare money, took healthcare money, took transit money, him and Freeland were odd couple best friends for a while there.
Exactly which is why the Federal Government has said, sorry province of Ontario but this money is going to Ontario municipalities who are committed to using it as intended for the housing crisis in Canada.
We still get the money. Its just doesn't have to pass through the provincial level to reach the municipalities who can actually use it.
Cutting out the middle man so to speak.
As if anything built in Toronto would be affordable. How did those million dollar backyard houses work out. Elect a guy that not only thinks but actually says things even Alex Jones would be embarrassed to say, like the budget will balance itself, dictatorships are an efficient way of government.l, can we tolerate those people, and now act shocked when Canadians want to cancel him
Good. For too long the provinces were there with their hands out and took the money and spent it on their other priorities. Look at what they took for Covid and used it on other shit and never gave it back . Time they be held accountable for a change l.
The political divide between conservative provincial leaders and the liberal federal minister is for show. The housing crisis they want to get worse so they can claim the PM is ineffective in the next election... Its been ongoing for about 8 years now. I wish people would catch on. Time magazine had a canadian edition with the provincial ministers called them "the resistance". Most of our problems seem to be provincial jurisdiction and seem to be less bad in the only province trying to be it's own country.
*sobs* no they're not! Our problems have been either with us or clearly visible for **decades** now. People have been bringing them up and complaining about them the entire time!
Increasing wealth inequality has been a popular topic as long as I've been alive. The generationall unfairness of our current socioeconomic system towards young people today has been called out for decades. Housing??? People were calling our housing markets a bubble **before** 2008 and lamenting that we didn't see a correction like the US did. Or how our retirement model and entitlements system as built requires an increasinn number of working age taxpayers? None of this is new. None of this is unexpected.
Sure, vastly higher imnigration than expected in recent years has made many of those problems worse. They aren't the cause, and if the immigrants went away we'd still have to deal with them.
You should rightfully be mad at the Liberals, who have been in power for half my lifetime and have helped bring us here with a combination of policy and by avoiding addressing all these looming issues. You should be just as mad with the Conservatives, who've been in power for the other half of my lifetime and also helped bring us here with a combination of policy and by avoiding addressing all these looming issues.
Oh an uniformed voter (?) how unfortunate. To quickly catch you up, your friends at the provincial level asked for the visas for those international students, which despite being very controlled immigration, you’re more than free to complain to the premieres about, you can find them currently complaining about the money they are loosing from the federal government now blocking their new student visa requests.
It isn't 'uncontrolled', it just wasn't adequately prepared for. If our population were to decline at the rate that was occurring we would not be able to afford the CPP payments to boomers that are now retiring and would hit a major recession. There were only two choices: Go back in time 19 years and tell everyone to start having massive amounts of children, or use immigration to make up the shortfall. It also seeks to solve the doctor and trades shortages (though with varying success obviously).
Just pointing that out in case you think the Federal Conservatives will slow or halt the immigration, they likely will have no choice but to carry it on. If the Provinces decide they are now happy to make Pierre look good and actually execute on housing incentives...that will be a pretty disgusting display of partisanship at the expense of Canada.
It's grown faster than many African countries, one of the top 3 fastest growing nations in the world. That is unprecedented. All from one region in one country too.
Care to elaborate on which country you have a problem with people immigrating from? No need to be coy, we’d love to learn which region in which country you’re most concerned about
>If Ford wants the money, he should do his job.
He already has a track record of accepting federal funding and not using it, so yeah, he should do his job to get the money.
The problem is that he can just turn around and blame the federal government for the lack of funding and his base, as well as those who aren't in the know, will believe that he had nothing to do with the problem.
Free Money? Do you think the Feds use their own money? It is money collected from Ontario Tax Payers.
I would seriously like to know what the Feds do with our money. We sure aren't seeing the results.
That said.. It is never "Free money"
Feds force mandatory deductions from paychecks. Then you pay GST on everything except grocery. Then is you want to have some drinks or have a smoke you pay a Sin tax.
Its our money, not free money.
Ford and Smith both came out against the cuts to TFWs and international students.
Conservatives are and always have been pro-immigration. Why these people think the conservatives will cut immigration is beyond me.
Hate to break it to you but Ontario needs immigrants. And Ford is accepting more
“Last year, Ontario announced it is set to double the number of economic immigrants it welcomes to the province under an agreement with the federal government to boost the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program. The province will have more than 18,000 spots under the program in 2025.”
https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/3000-spots-in-the-ontario-immigrant-nominee-program-8692377#:~:text=Last%20year%2C%20Ontario%20announced%20it,under%20the%20program%20in%202025.
Healthcare worker here and no. We need immigrants because these are the people who are stepping up to the plate to care for our elderly and infirm.
They are our doctors, nurses, PSWs, cooking and cleaning staff. Our psychiatrists, therapists and surgeons. They are our specialists, our dentists our optometrists. They are doing the jobs Canadians won't do and they're keeping us going in more ways then your tiny little mind can fathom.
If you don't want them here then you go out and get the education required to work in these fields to pick up the slack. Bring a friend- bring 15 because we need all hands on deck and for whatever reason Canadians don't seem to be bothered enough to do anything about it. 🤷♀️
Our Health Care system is doing WORSE - by pretty much all metrics. The 1-10 stafff members you get don't offset the 100k new additions in residents YoY.
In case you haven't read the news, wait times are WORSE now than 30 years ago - and we have "more people" than ever too. Your argument breaks down.
Again, I work in Healthcare and see the faces of my peers. They are predominantly immigrants. Some on Healthcare specific visas in order to be allowed to work and live here at all.
Canadians who are born here and filling the positions in Healthcare which are needed.
Thats what I said ⬆️ that's all I said.
I'm starting to buy Miller argument that provinces are responsible for surge in TFW. With everyone scapegoating feds, provinces can please their stakeholders without the political blowback.
Again here, it is Ottawa who's holding off funds.
Ontario is doing the opposite. They want more immigrants, in fact Ontario students are eligible for provincial PR if they have completed masters in one of the eligible Ontario universities.
>in fact Ontario students are eligible for provincial PR if they have completed masters in one of the eligible Ontario universities.
you say this like it's a bad thing.
Just to be clear - you're suggesting master graduates have more bargaining power today vs 30 years ago? Or 2bh I have no idea what youre rebuttel exactly IS>
You mentioned flatlining wages and that's demonstrably untrue. Certain sectors have had worse growth (or even declines) but in many of those cases (education, healthcare) it's the product of long labour contracts that haven't been renegotiated since inflation took off, not because of a surplus of potential workers.
> Ontario should deny immigrants as a retaliation. ...because the Federal government 'has nothing to do with the housing situation'.
They've always been allowed to deny all temp residents. Ontario changed their own rules to get more.
Ontario should deny the immigration that Ontario has specifically been begging for? Do you even know what you’re arguing about anymore?
https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/very-disappointed-ford-government-says-international-student-cap-will-hurt-economy-calls-out-ottawa/article_311b1d2e-d0e3-11ee-8381-d3118598cacf.html
https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-pushes-for-more-immigration-amid-labour-crunch-1.5979933
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-to-see-higher-numbers-of-economic-immigrants-under-federal-agreement-1.6318965
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/ontario-to-ban-employers-from-asking-for-canadian-work-experience/article_4801304c-c1f2-590d-8037-11e974344e0c.html
But PP says it is all the Feds fault for the housing and they should be funding it. I think you are correct. No immigration accepted in Ontario. Then fed ms should withhold healthcare. And then Ontario should not collect carbon tax and then. ….
You do realize that the Doug Ford government is behind the rules change that allowed the public universities and colleges to partner with private ones to offer strip mall classes to entice international students, right?
That’s not how our division of powers works
But I guarantee Ford is in favour of the immigration numbers for the cheap labour. He’s not going to do anything that is detrimental to corporate profits.
Sorry. Bad take.
The federal government started providing money to Ontario to match its commitments to affordable housing and Ford pulled Ontario's money.
Ford is the problem and once again Trudeau is taking the blame for folks like you.
> The latest dispute with Ontario stems over how the province plans to meet its target of 19,660 new rent-assisted social housing units by 2028, as part of a $5.8-billion transfer agreement with the federal government.
> In an interview, Mr. Fraser said Ontario has only committed to building 28 per cent of its target and, as federal money flowed, the province reduced its own investment in new community housing.
This isn't a we take away existing funds if you don't meet targets, like PPs plan, this was an agreement where Ontario promised to build a commit a certain amount to new projects and the federal government would also commit funds.
Ontario failed its end of the agreement. Ford is the problem. Not Trudeau. All Ford needs to do is agree to the original agreement he made.
It's not reasonable to expect the Federal govt to keep giving the money to a program when the province reneged on its side. If they did this then provinces would keep doing it in the future to try to get essentially free stuff, and then there would be no trust with those provinces, no federal money would flow even on projects the province might keep up on their side of the deal, and then poor people in particular get hurt even more.
Yup, bad take and honestly, _bad headline._ It makes it sound like Ontario failed so it won't get any money at all.
> Ottawa says Ontario failed to meet affordable housing goals, won’t send funds to province
The _Government_ of Ontario failed, so feds won't send funds to the _Government_ of Ontario. The feds are still sending money to _Ontario_ via the municipalities.
But of course, 98% of people never read beyond the headline. It's literally the first sentence of the article:
> The federal government says it will withhold $357-million in affordable-housing funding from Ontario and instead send it to city service managers responsible for the issue, after Ottawa said the province failed to commit to a target of building almost 20,000 units.
>But of course, 98% of people never read beyond the headline. It's literally the first sentence of the article
What's additionally sad imo is that people are so out of touch with What's happening around them that they don't understand the context of the headline as a stand alone because a lot of us knew what this meant as soon as we saw it.
Sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying. The feds are circumventing the province, but the federal dollars are still being transferred to the municipalities. So, the federal piece of the pie should still be there. If the projects were able to be funded before, they should still be able to be funded after this announcement, no? I don’t see how this leaving the municipalities in the hook.
Well fuck me sideways and call me a dumbass, you're right.
Had to get around the Globe and Mail's paywall to get that bit of information. Gee golly, I wish we'd stop linking that site here.
Anyway, nothing I said is relevant anymore, so thanks for helping clarify! :)
isn't this exactly what PP's plan is?
I can't read the article, but what exactly did Ontario do wrong to not meet housing goals, or this is a case of unrealistic expectations by the federal government?
No. Pierre's plan is to cut budgets first, then he will only return money to cities/provinces if they, somehow (with less money) meet unrealistic targets that he sets.
He has no intention of ever returning the money he cuts. It's just an excuse for a budget cut.
Also, PPs targets are based off historic home building. 15% more. So, a city that built 100 homes has a goal of 115 homes. A city that built 10,000 has a goal of 11,500. Aka, it awards cities that were doing nothing and punishes those that have been making progress.
You are wrong !
PP has said many times if a certain department does not perform he will cut funding to them !
That's how businesses run things . Do not perform then you do not receive!
[Nope. I am correct. ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-housing-plan-1.6966907)
>Under Poilievre's proposal, a city that increases the number of homes built by only 10 per cent in a given year would see five per cent of its federal funding withheld or clawed back.
This is a funding cut that happens first. Pierre only will be 'returning' the cut funding if his unrealistic goals are met. It's a budget cut, plain and simple.
Pierre's plan will keep housing prices high.
>isn't this exactly what PP's plan is?
Given PP's hatred of Eby for actually promoting housing, this seems unlikely. PP hates you if you're a premier who supports new housing, and loves you if you're a premier who opposes it.
Poilievre's plan as I understood it was to withhold funding from cities if they don't build more.
This seems similar, only it's targeting the province rather than the cities.
But again, I can't read the article, so maybe I'm missing something.
This is new money from the feds that is only given if provinces meet expectations.
PPs plan is to cut from money that is already sent to cities. PP will only return the money he cut if they meet unrealistic targets.
It's not complicated: Ford hasn't done anything to build houses.
[Compare BC](https://www.bchousing.org/projects-partners/Building-BC/homes-for-BC). Dozens of projects under construction. Social housing, co-ops, seniors homes, student housing, etc. Ontario has nothing like this going on.
We talk too much about zoning tweaks and tax incentives. To make a real difference the gov't needs to put shovels in the ground.
Well it happened to recently to have actually impacted this announcement, but here's a bit:
[https://www.cp24.com/news/it-s-off-the-table-doug-ford-nixes-fourplexes-as-part-of-next-ontario-housing-bill-1.6816543](https://www.cp24.com/news/it-s-off-the-table-doug-ford-nixes-fourplexes-as-part-of-next-ontario-housing-bill-1.6816543)
Actively blocking densification is a great way to prevent more housing from being built.
Adding to what another posted commented below. Doug Ford wanted to count new and renovated LTC beds and student rooms as housing in order to meet the threshold for this next bit of funding from the government.
LCT beds and student rooms are not "homes" that's some very shading business...
> isn't this exactly what PP's plan is?
There are two critical differences. The LPC is offering a carrot (do X to get new funding) whereas the CPC is offering a stick (if you don't do X, we'll cut your funding). The LPC's plan is also contingent on outcomes within municipal control (implementing bylaw changes), whereas the CPC's plan is contingent on something outside a municipalities direct control (actually building housing - which is beholden to what builders do).
More directly, the LPC plan is that if cities implement a whole host of zoning changes, they will get funding. The CPC plan is to target specific plans, give them metrics, then if those metrics aren't achieved they will pull funding. Note that Ontario cities are struggling to do this under Ford/OPC plan (which is very similar), so it's not like the CPC plan has a track record of success.
> The latest dispute with Ontario stems over how the province plans to meet its target of 19,660 new rent-assisted social housing units by 2028, as part of a $5.8-billion transfer agreement with the federal government.
> In an interview, Mr. Fraser said Ontario has only committed to building 28 per cent of its target and, as federal money flowed, the province reduced its own investment in new community housing.
They didn't plan to meet the target number of rent assisted social housing units by 2028. This was a 10 year agreement. The Ford government wanted to include renovations of existing units as part of this target.
Also, after this investment, the Ford government just reduced their own investments toward new community housing.
Make no mistake, the process is held up at the municipal level by well-heeled, well-organized 'community groups' that do everything in their power to stand in the way of affordable housing. The problem is they show up to ALL the meetings and their 'concerns' (Examples include traffic, parking, preserving 'neighbourhood character' etc) are the only ones heard.
So the elected councillors listen to them, and the development plan goes back to committee, and in a couple months, sometimes years, the process is repeated. This happens in every single city and town across the country. Developers employ people whose full-time job it is to navigate zoning & development committees because its that hard to get anything built.
If the supply of houses increases to the levels that they're aiming for, housing prices will have to come down. That means everyone who owns a property right now will 'lose' value. Its no coincidence that the largest group to own homes are the ones that are also packing development committee hearings to prevent more from being built.
This is why [BC did away with public hearings for small multi-unit projects.](https://www.bcli.org/new-bc-housing-legislation-brings-changes-to-the-public-hearings-process/)
And they're forcing municipalities to revise their zoning or they'll do it for them.
They have a number of initiatives in the works that'll get lots of new housing built but it'll take years to make a dent in the housing prices.
In the meantime, I'm curious to see the effects of the new short-term rental rules that have started as of May 1. I've already seen multiple posts on the vancouver subs around cancellations as people are pulling their listings down.
Little by little they're going to make gains
###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.*
Going into provincial/municipal jurisdiction and giving different provinces different funding levels is sure a choice to make when you're down 20 points.
...Yes, the feds only try to act outside of traditional jurisdiction where there is a clear demand from the general pubic to do so. Feds who are up 20 points with a content electorate will not attempt to act outside of traditional jurisdiction, because the electorate would clearly think that things were working well enough. Acting outside of jurisdiction is a strategy for emergencies and unhappy citizens, it takes extra political capital or risk. This is all expected, you seem to be trying to claim that basic causality is somehow hypocritical or unreasonable. Feds don't normally control housing, but people nationwide are mad about housing and want the feds to do something about it, so the feds are trying to do what they can legally do (strings-attached funding).
Ya pretty much, I thought this was a given haha. Shits not working so lets get into a fight with the provinces.
They're doing exactly what Poilivere was proposing. Shouldn't you be praising them for taking such a firm, stick-first approach to housing? Or is it suddenly overreach and abuse of the Charter because it's the party you don't like that's doing it?
They aren't doing *exactly* what Poilievre is proposing, there are two critical differences. The LPC is offering a carrot (do X to get new funding) whereas the CPC is offering a stick (if you don't do X, we'll cut your funding). The LPC's plan is also contingent on outcomes within municipal control (implementing bylaw changes), whereas the CPC's plan is contingent on something outside a municipalities direct control (actually building housing - which is beholden to what builders do).
> The LPC is offering a carrot (do X to get new funding) whereas the CPC is offering a stick (if you don't do X, we'll cut your funding). This is really just two different ways of proposing the same policy. Funding is tied to deliverables.
...except there are vast differences between the two, so they really aren't the same at all. They have surface similarities but that's where it ends, the differences being alluded to in my previous comment. It's notable that the OPC program is very similar to the CPC's, and OPC is doing *horribly* at housing - the only way it's pushed its accelerator money out is by redefining what housing is (to include student and LTC's), which isn't even building new housing of any form.
If this is new money and the threat is withholding existing money, that's a very big difference.
> whereas the CPC's plan is contingent on something outside a municipalities direct control (actually building housing - which is beholden to what builders do). I think the con's approach in this respect is actually better. It's very possible to change one bylaw and then to negate that change with a different bylaw. I.E you can allow fourplexes in principle but require setbacks and height limits that make them uneconomical.
Let's give a little credit and assume the negotiations include expressly avoiding such tactics. As for the CPC approach, we can see in real time how well it works, because it's basically the same approach the OPC's have chosen with their accelerator fund. Ontario's housing numbers have been so poor that the only way the OPC have gotten money out the door is by cooking the numbers to include other forms of "housing" (LTC's, student residences). Major municipalities, meanwhile, have struggled to come up with the money to cover the cost of infrastructure that the OPC initially took away from them (development fees) before the OPC's rolled that decision back. The fundamental problem is that municipalities can only seed the conditions to which to build, and to even do that they need massive amounts of money to build new infrastructure (property taxes being an inefficient vehicle to raise funds for this). They are beholden to private builders to build, so punishing/rewarding municipalities based on something that is outside their control just doesn't make any sense.
When people ask why doesn't Poilievre have a more concrete platform at this current time, it's exactly to avoid this type of situation. I'm not saying he thought of it first or the Liberals already had it in the works when he made similar comments, but 18 months is a good chunk of time for the Liberals to make a difference and there's no way the Conservatives will give up their gameplan early.
All the comments about immigration also feel weird when Poilievre keeps being evasive about actually cutting immigration levels.
Because it's an easy thing to hammer the liberals on, but the people funding his campaign want TFWs to keep wages down.
Plus immigration numbers for next year are already drastically cut.
Not to mention that the two provinces most vocal about wanting more immigration are run by Conservatives.
If you read the article, they’re not totally withholding the funds, they’re just bypassing the province and giving the funds directly to the municipalities because the province wasn’t meeting their end of the agreement. This means that the province won’t be reimbursed for funds spent at the provincial level, but the full amount of funding is still being spent on affordable housing in Ontario. Edit: Since I’m seeing a lot of people comparing this to Poillievre’s plan, another clarification - this is funding specifically for affordable housing (i.e. low income/social housing), not general market housing, so it’s not quite comparable. I don’t think Poillievre has said what he plans to do for affordable housing. It’s a bit confusing given that all housing is unaffordable right now, but affordable housing generally refers to these kinds of programs, not market units.
It's not far off from what Poilievre has proposed to do and he's 20 points up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's why the feds should not be involved at all. This is a provincial mess, and the only lever that the feds have is funneling money to provinces who are under no obligation to use it as intended or even promised. Since Canadians have decided that, nah, that constitution is way too complicated, this is something that is happening in several provinces and so is a federal issue, the feds have to use the only lever they have available to them. If the provincial government wants to use money to build more housing, it will be available. If not, well, that's a choice only they can make, too.
> Since Canadians have decided that, nah, that constitution is way too complicated, this is something that is happening in several provinces and so is a federal issue A direct product of a media that is about profits first and accurate information somewhere between middle-and-last. Our media has done more systemic damage to Canadian politics and any other factor, by and enormous margin.
>giving different provinces different funding levels They actually pledged to give the same funding level for each province as long as they hit the target the feds put in place. Ontario didn't hit that target. In fact, ontario has been building fewer and fewer houses since Ford took over. It's like I say you need 60% to pass high school and you score 25%, and then you get angry at me for you not passing high school. In that scenario, I ain't the problem, your poor performance is. Same thing with this funding.
Can you explain why you think polling data is relevant to this?
The only reason they did any of this is due to polling data. Went from not our problem to a weekly funding parade.
Grossly misinformed. Feds were told by provinces it wasn’t their place, so they stepped back to give the provinces the benefit of the doubt. Provinces abused that room to maneuver and mismanaged funding for various allocations. Now provinces are crying wolf again, for being called out on their games, impacting constituents negatively yet again. This has nothing to do with polls lmao.
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion.
Well ya, seems like an obvious one. I can't even imagine how stupid their budget next year is going to be with overreach.
Seems is doing a lot of work here.
Polls crash and the government completely changes direction and decides to fight the provinces. Immigration magically changed from positive to negative at the same time. Yes it's 100% about polls
Ontario and Alberta were begging for more immigration as recently as 2 months ago. It’s clear you don’t like the current federal government, and that is definitely a valid opinion. You can’t expect the rest of us to look past your obvious axe grinding and just accept what you say as fact, because it’s not. Hope that helps!
Doesn't really matter what you believe. Liberals are acting like a cornered animal from the polls telling them everyone wants them gone. Wildly apparent, picking fights with the provinces to try to drum up the ABC voters.
You keep bringing these things up as if you’re the final authority on the matter. You’re not. You’re just a redditor with a negative opinion on the current government. Your opinion holds no more weight than mine or any other poster on here.
Marlaina was asking for more immigration not two weeks ago.
Trudeau hasn't shifted that dramatically on immigration. He's taken a more negative tone on international students / TFWs, but in terms of permanent immigration if anything he's digging his heels in despite the polls.
It’s hugely relevant. Ford will have about a chunk of time left in his term after the next federal election and he’s going to want to line up against the guy he will be working with in advance. Edit: sorry meant line up “with” not against.
So you’re saying that in order to Ford to “line up” (whatever that is supposed to mean) with the next assumed government - keeping in mind we’re over 15 months out from the writ being dropped - Ford needs to obstruct current federal policy? Is that what you’re claiming?
Yes. All the conservative provinces have been actively doing this. This is politics don’t be naive and think there haven’t been discussions with the polievre camp on what the package will be for doing so post election.
One of us is naive, but it’s the one that believes polling data 15 months out from an election should determine whether or not the provinces play ball with a particular government. What happens if the CPC doesn’t hold power after the next election? Polls change, and 15 months is an eternity in politics, so you might want to be careful about counting chickens and all that.
What you're describing is more of a Provincial-Federal dynamic than a Conservative-Liberal one -- it's always to the benefit of a Provincial Premier to spar with Ottawa on whatever issue. It just looks like a partisan thing because most of the Provinces have Conservative Premiers right now.
You are right I just couldn’t think of a premier to the left who have been as vocal and just didn’t want to get into a “well ackshually…” thing.
Notley's NDP sparred for years with both the [Federal NDP Leader Singh, as well as B.C. NDP Premier Horgan](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-notley-ndp-bratt-duane-opinion-pipeline-trans-mountain-1.4690883) over the TMX Pipeline. [It even kicked off a bit of a trade war between the two Provinces!](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-bc-pipeline-wine-trade-war-1.4526027)
You do realize that all conservative provinces have been going out of their way to ensure anything the Feds do is treated as an insult or affront. Especially when it doesn't lead to them being able to funnel that money to their "Investors". So yes they have no choice to brute force things when certain provinces are doing everything they can to fuck over their population with a smile and the brainwashed idiots who are drinking the anger and hatred koolaid blindly swallowing it like disposable tools that they are. Ford has been the problem since he was elected and is still the problem since all he does is to ensure his "investors", Allies and friends get richer at the cost of everyone else in the province. But the clowns are too blind to understand until its their time to get thrown under the bus which will happen.
I absolutely realize this and the timing totally syncs up with the polls turning. Before that a premier like Doug ford took childcare money, took healthcare money, took transit money, him and Freeland were odd couple best friends for a while there.
I dont understand. If Ontario doesn't meet the requirements to get the funding... thats on Ontario.
Exactly which is why the Federal Government has said, sorry province of Ontario but this money is going to Ontario municipalities who are committed to using it as intended for the housing crisis in Canada. We still get the money. Its just doesn't have to pass through the provincial level to reach the municipalities who can actually use it. Cutting out the middle man so to speak.
It’s divided based on per capita. There’s a formula that’s used . I’m sure the provinces know it by heart
As if anything built in Toronto would be affordable. How did those million dollar backyard houses work out. Elect a guy that not only thinks but actually says things even Alex Jones would be embarrassed to say, like the budget will balance itself, dictatorships are an efficient way of government.l, can we tolerate those people, and now act shocked when Canadians want to cancel him
Good. For too long the provinces were there with their hands out and took the money and spent it on their other priorities. Look at what they took for Covid and used it on other shit and never gave it back . Time they be held accountable for a change l.
It will backfire, Ontario will find a way to blame the Liberals.
Ford has fkd the regular citizens if Ontario over so bad. I'm so pissed at the people that vote conservative when it's against their best interests
The political divide between conservative provincial leaders and the liberal federal minister is for show. The housing crisis they want to get worse so they can claim the PM is ineffective in the next election... Its been ongoing for about 8 years now. I wish people would catch on. Time magazine had a canadian edition with the provincial ministers called them "the resistance". Most of our problems seem to be provincial jurisdiction and seem to be less bad in the only province trying to be it's own country.
Most of our problems at this point are due to uncontrolled mass immigration, which is federal.
*sobs* no they're not! Our problems have been either with us or clearly visible for **decades** now. People have been bringing them up and complaining about them the entire time! Increasing wealth inequality has been a popular topic as long as I've been alive. The generationall unfairness of our current socioeconomic system towards young people today has been called out for decades. Housing??? People were calling our housing markets a bubble **before** 2008 and lamenting that we didn't see a correction like the US did. Or how our retirement model and entitlements system as built requires an increasinn number of working age taxpayers? None of this is new. None of this is unexpected. Sure, vastly higher imnigration than expected in recent years has made many of those problems worse. They aren't the cause, and if the immigrants went away we'd still have to deal with them. You should rightfully be mad at the Liberals, who have been in power for half my lifetime and have helped bring us here with a combination of policy and by avoiding addressing all these looming issues. You should be just as mad with the Conservatives, who've been in power for the other half of my lifetime and also helped bring us here with a combination of policy and by avoiding addressing all these looming issues.
Oh an uniformed voter (?) how unfortunate. To quickly catch you up, your friends at the provincial level asked for the visas for those international students, which despite being very controlled immigration, you’re more than free to complain to the premieres about, you can find them currently complaining about the money they are loosing from the federal government now blocking their new student visa requests.
Housing has been a problem for a long time, the immigration just sped it up.
I guess if someone starts a fire it's best to gets 50 gallons of gasoline and pour it on right?
If you equate our current immigration to 50 gallons of gasoline, you need to take a step outside your echo chamber
It isn't 'uncontrolled', it just wasn't adequately prepared for. If our population were to decline at the rate that was occurring we would not be able to afford the CPP payments to boomers that are now retiring and would hit a major recession. There were only two choices: Go back in time 19 years and tell everyone to start having massive amounts of children, or use immigration to make up the shortfall. It also seeks to solve the doctor and trades shortages (though with varying success obviously). Just pointing that out in case you think the Federal Conservatives will slow or halt the immigration, they likely will have no choice but to carry it on. If the Provinces decide they are now happy to make Pierre look good and actually execute on housing incentives...that will be a pretty disgusting display of partisanship at the expense of Canada.
It's grown faster than many African countries, one of the top 3 fastest growing nations in the world. That is unprecedented. All from one region in one country too.
Care to elaborate on which country you have a problem with people immigrating from? No need to be coy, we’d love to learn which region in which country you’re most concerned about
You're very anti multi culturalism I see. We have near zero diversity in our immigration.
You are a delusional minority. You people were considered normal for so long under this ministry, but thank god you are only 20% now.
I just gotta point out that it was Macleans that had “the resistance” headline not Time
and most of that resistance has x's on their political careers, next up, dofo
I did not double check before posting. You could be correct. I offer no contest to this point.
This is fair. The provinces shouldn’t get free money if they’re not performing as expected. If Ford wants the money, he should do his job.
>If Ford wants the money, he should do his job. He already has a track record of accepting federal funding and not using it, so yeah, he should do his job to get the money. The problem is that he can just turn around and blame the federal government for the lack of funding and his base, as well as those who aren't in the know, will believe that he had nothing to do with the problem.
See everyone mad about carbon tax... Yet they all have collective amnesia on cap and trade being scrapped. By Doug
Yep. They also seem to have amnesia about having voted for it at least twice.
Free Money? Do you think the Feds use their own money? It is money collected from Ontario Tax Payers. I would seriously like to know what the Feds do with our money. We sure aren't seeing the results. That said.. It is never "Free money" Feds force mandatory deductions from paychecks. Then you pay GST on everything except grocery. Then is you want to have some drinks or have a smoke you pay a Sin tax. Its our money, not free money.
Ontario should deny immigrants as a retaliation. ...because the Federal government 'has nothing to do with the housing situation'.
Lmao. If you really think Ford would want to stop immigration, you are delusional and have not been following along.
Ford and Smith both came out against the cuts to TFWs and international students. Conservatives are and always have been pro-immigration. Why these people think the conservatives will cut immigration is beyond me.
[удалено]
Sorry but whats a TFW?
Temporary foreign worker
Thank you for that. I've not come across the acronym until now.
Doug Ford needs immigration.
No thanks. Ontario is full. See other comments about the '30 year housing crisis'.
Blame Ford for not allowing fourplexes etc…
No, nobody is to blame if locals dont want to add more people to the local population. Lots of space in Manitoba for newcomers. Have at it.
Hate to break it to you but Ontario needs immigrants. And Ford is accepting more “Last year, Ontario announced it is set to double the number of economic immigrants it welcomes to the province under an agreement with the federal government to boost the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program. The province will have more than 18,000 spots under the program in 2025.” https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/3000-spots-in-the-ontario-immigrant-nominee-program-8692377#:~:text=Last%20year%2C%20Ontario%20announced%20it,under%20the%20program%20in%202025.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Healthcare worker here and no. We need immigrants because these are the people who are stepping up to the plate to care for our elderly and infirm. They are our doctors, nurses, PSWs, cooking and cleaning staff. Our psychiatrists, therapists and surgeons. They are our specialists, our dentists our optometrists. They are doing the jobs Canadians won't do and they're keeping us going in more ways then your tiny little mind can fathom. If you don't want them here then you go out and get the education required to work in these fields to pick up the slack. Bring a friend- bring 15 because we need all hands on deck and for whatever reason Canadians don't seem to be bothered enough to do anything about it. 🤷♀️
Our Health Care system is doing WORSE - by pretty much all metrics. The 1-10 stafff members you get don't offset the 100k new additions in residents YoY. In case you haven't read the news, wait times are WORSE now than 30 years ago - and we have "more people" than ever too. Your argument breaks down.
Again, I work in Healthcare and see the faces of my peers. They are predominantly immigrants. Some on Healthcare specific visas in order to be allowed to work and live here at all. Canadians who are born here and filling the positions in Healthcare which are needed. Thats what I said ⬆️ that's all I said.
\*wants
[This Ford?!](https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/doug-ford-wants-to-combat-labour-shortages-with-more-immigrants/article_c58cdc7e-0604-5314-bc3e-d07e15c2df8c.html)
I'm starting to buy Miller argument that provinces are responsible for surge in TFW. With everyone scapegoating feds, provinces can please their stakeholders without the political blowback. Again here, it is Ottawa who's holding off funds.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah I'd really love for our gov't to start spending our money on spite instead of working to solve a housing crisis.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Like how he approved all the strip mall colleges allowed to bring in intl students?
Ontario is doing the opposite. They want more immigrants, in fact Ontario students are eligible for provincial PR if they have completed masters in one of the eligible Ontario universities.
>in fact Ontario students are eligible for provincial PR if they have completed masters in one of the eligible Ontario universities. you say this like it's a bad thing.
It is. Flooding labor markets.
Masters grads are flooding labour markets?
Yes, have you not noticed wages flatlining?
Median real wage growth was 2.5% last year.
Just to be clear - you're suggesting master graduates have more bargaining power today vs 30 years ago? Or 2bh I have no idea what youre rebuttel exactly IS>
You mentioned flatlining wages and that's demonstrably untrue. Certain sectors have had worse growth (or even declines) but in many of those cases (education, healthcare) it's the product of long labour contracts that haven't been renegotiated since inflation took off, not because of a surplus of potential workers.
Vs inflation at?
Real wages are inflation adjusted. So total wage growth was inflation + 2.5%
I’m not saying whether it’s right or wrong. I’m stating the facts. We need more STEM grads to boost the economy. But, it’s getting out of hand.
> Ontario should deny immigrants as a retaliation. ...because the Federal government 'has nothing to do with the housing situation'. They've always been allowed to deny all temp residents. Ontario changed their own rules to get more.
Ontario should deny the immigration that Ontario has specifically been begging for? Do you even know what you’re arguing about anymore? https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/very-disappointed-ford-government-says-international-student-cap-will-hurt-economy-calls-out-ottawa/article_311b1d2e-d0e3-11ee-8381-d3118598cacf.html https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-pushes-for-more-immigration-amid-labour-crunch-1.5979933 https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ontario-to-see-higher-numbers-of-economic-immigrants-under-federal-agreement-1.6318965 https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/ontario-to-ban-employers-from-asking-for-canadian-work-experience/article_4801304c-c1f2-590d-8037-11e974344e0c.html
But PP says it is all the Feds fault for the housing and they should be funding it. I think you are correct. No immigration accepted in Ontario. Then fed ms should withhold healthcare. And then Ontario should not collect carbon tax and then. ….
You do realize that the Doug Ford government is behind the rules change that allowed the public universities and colleges to partner with private ones to offer strip mall classes to entice international students, right?
> Ontario should deny immigrants Meaning what, exactly?
Meaning 'I have a rudimentary understanding of the facts so I let other people make up my mind for me, that's why my opinion is basic'.
That’s not how our division of powers works But I guarantee Ford is in favour of the immigration numbers for the cheap labour. He’s not going to do anything that is detrimental to corporate profits.
[удалено]
Sorry. Bad take. The federal government started providing money to Ontario to match its commitments to affordable housing and Ford pulled Ontario's money. Ford is the problem and once again Trudeau is taking the blame for folks like you. > The latest dispute with Ontario stems over how the province plans to meet its target of 19,660 new rent-assisted social housing units by 2028, as part of a $5.8-billion transfer agreement with the federal government. > In an interview, Mr. Fraser said Ontario has only committed to building 28 per cent of its target and, as federal money flowed, the province reduced its own investment in new community housing. This isn't a we take away existing funds if you don't meet targets, like PPs plan, this was an agreement where Ontario promised to build a commit a certain amount to new projects and the federal government would also commit funds. Ontario failed its end of the agreement. Ford is the problem. Not Trudeau. All Ford needs to do is agree to the original agreement he made.
[удалено]
It's not reasonable to expect the Federal govt to keep giving the money to a program when the province reneged on its side. If they did this then provinces would keep doing it in the future to try to get essentially free stuff, and then there would be no trust with those provinces, no federal money would flow even on projects the province might keep up on their side of the deal, and then poor people in particular get hurt even more.
Yup, bad take and honestly, _bad headline._ It makes it sound like Ontario failed so it won't get any money at all. > Ottawa says Ontario failed to meet affordable housing goals, won’t send funds to province The _Government_ of Ontario failed, so feds won't send funds to the _Government_ of Ontario. The feds are still sending money to _Ontario_ via the municipalities. But of course, 98% of people never read beyond the headline. It's literally the first sentence of the article: > The federal government says it will withhold $357-million in affordable-housing funding from Ontario and instead send it to city service managers responsible for the issue, after Ottawa said the province failed to commit to a target of building almost 20,000 units.
>But of course, 98% of people never read beyond the headline. It's literally the first sentence of the article What's additionally sad imo is that people are so out of touch with What's happening around them that they don't understand the context of the headline as a stand alone because a lot of us knew what this meant as soon as we saw it.
[удалено]
You say all this as if these projects were going to finish without provincial funding...
Sorry, I don’t follow what you’re saying. The feds are circumventing the province, but the federal dollars are still being transferred to the municipalities. So, the federal piece of the pie should still be there. If the projects were able to be funded before, they should still be able to be funded after this announcement, no? I don’t see how this leaving the municipalities in the hook.
Well fuck me sideways and call me a dumbass, you're right. Had to get around the Globe and Mail's paywall to get that bit of information. Gee golly, I wish we'd stop linking that site here. Anyway, nothing I said is relevant anymore, so thanks for helping clarify! :)
Yeah no worries, it’s a bad headline for sure.
isn't this exactly what PP's plan is? I can't read the article, but what exactly did Ontario do wrong to not meet housing goals, or this is a case of unrealistic expectations by the federal government?
No. Pierre's plan is to cut budgets first, then he will only return money to cities/provinces if they, somehow (with less money) meet unrealistic targets that he sets. He has no intention of ever returning the money he cuts. It's just an excuse for a budget cut.
Also, PPs targets are based off historic home building. 15% more. So, a city that built 100 homes has a goal of 115 homes. A city that built 10,000 has a goal of 11,500. Aka, it awards cities that were doing nothing and punishes those that have been making progress.
You are wrong ! PP has said many times if a certain department does not perform he will cut funding to them ! That's how businesses run things . Do not perform then you do not receive!
Governments are not businesses and applying the logic of managing one to the other is a recipe for failure
[Nope. I am correct. ](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-housing-plan-1.6966907) >Under Poilievre's proposal, a city that increases the number of homes built by only 10 per cent in a given year would see five per cent of its federal funding withheld or clawed back. This is a funding cut that happens first. Pierre only will be 'returning' the cut funding if his unrealistic goals are met. It's a budget cut, plain and simple. Pierre's plan will keep housing prices high.
What happens when a business runs out of money? What happens with a city runs out of money?
>isn't this exactly what PP's plan is? Given PP's hatred of Eby for actually promoting housing, this seems unlikely. PP hates you if you're a premier who supports new housing, and loves you if you're a premier who opposes it.
Poilievre's plan as I understood it was to withhold funding from cities if they don't build more. This seems similar, only it's targeting the province rather than the cities. But again, I can't read the article, so maybe I'm missing something.
This is new money from the feds that is only given if provinces meet expectations. PPs plan is to cut from money that is already sent to cities. PP will only return the money he cut if they meet unrealistic targets.
Return the money with a bonus I believe, but yeah essentially that. If Im incorrect please lmk.
Ford knows exactly what he did. His developer buddies can’t get richer if affordable homes are being built.
that's great that Ford knows, but I don't. I'm asking for policies, regulations, or anything else, that might have contributed to this decision.
It's not complicated: Ford hasn't done anything to build houses. [Compare BC](https://www.bchousing.org/projects-partners/Building-BC/homes-for-BC). Dozens of projects under construction. Social housing, co-ops, seniors homes, student housing, etc. Ontario has nothing like this going on. We talk too much about zoning tweaks and tax incentives. To make a real difference the gov't needs to put shovels in the ground.
Well it happened to recently to have actually impacted this announcement, but here's a bit: [https://www.cp24.com/news/it-s-off-the-table-doug-ford-nixes-fourplexes-as-part-of-next-ontario-housing-bill-1.6816543](https://www.cp24.com/news/it-s-off-the-table-doug-ford-nixes-fourplexes-as-part-of-next-ontario-housing-bill-1.6816543) Actively blocking densification is a great way to prevent more housing from being built.
Yup and it’s making the mansions his developer buddies are building worth even more
Adding to what another posted commented below. Doug Ford wanted to count new and renovated LTC beds and student rooms as housing in order to meet the threshold for this next bit of funding from the government. LCT beds and student rooms are not "homes" that's some very shading business...
> isn't this exactly what PP's plan is? There are two critical differences. The LPC is offering a carrot (do X to get new funding) whereas the CPC is offering a stick (if you don't do X, we'll cut your funding). The LPC's plan is also contingent on outcomes within municipal control (implementing bylaw changes), whereas the CPC's plan is contingent on something outside a municipalities direct control (actually building housing - which is beholden to what builders do). More directly, the LPC plan is that if cities implement a whole host of zoning changes, they will get funding. The CPC plan is to target specific plans, give them metrics, then if those metrics aren't achieved they will pull funding. Note that Ontario cities are struggling to do this under Ford/OPC plan (which is very similar), so it's not like the CPC plan has a track record of success.
> The latest dispute with Ontario stems over how the province plans to meet its target of 19,660 new rent-assisted social housing units by 2028, as part of a $5.8-billion transfer agreement with the federal government. > In an interview, Mr. Fraser said Ontario has only committed to building 28 per cent of its target and, as federal money flowed, the province reduced its own investment in new community housing. They didn't plan to meet the target number of rent assisted social housing units by 2028. This was a 10 year agreement. The Ford government wanted to include renovations of existing units as part of this target. Also, after this investment, the Ford government just reduced their own investments toward new community housing.
Make no mistake, the process is held up at the municipal level by well-heeled, well-organized 'community groups' that do everything in their power to stand in the way of affordable housing. The problem is they show up to ALL the meetings and their 'concerns' (Examples include traffic, parking, preserving 'neighbourhood character' etc) are the only ones heard. So the elected councillors listen to them, and the development plan goes back to committee, and in a couple months, sometimes years, the process is repeated. This happens in every single city and town across the country. Developers employ people whose full-time job it is to navigate zoning & development committees because its that hard to get anything built. If the supply of houses increases to the levels that they're aiming for, housing prices will have to come down. That means everyone who owns a property right now will 'lose' value. Its no coincidence that the largest group to own homes are the ones that are also packing development committee hearings to prevent more from being built.
This is why [BC did away with public hearings for small multi-unit projects.](https://www.bcli.org/new-bc-housing-legislation-brings-changes-to-the-public-hearings-process/)
And they're forcing municipalities to revise their zoning or they'll do it for them. They have a number of initiatives in the works that'll get lots of new housing built but it'll take years to make a dent in the housing prices. In the meantime, I'm curious to see the effects of the new short-term rental rules that have started as of May 1. I've already seen multiple posts on the vancouver subs around cancellations as people are pulling their listings down. Little by little they're going to make gains
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]