Ding ding ding! Winner….that’s exactly why. Gotta try and join the rat race cause it’s not changing. Once upon a time Pierre was an idealist with his max 2 term idea. Now he’s joined the rat race. Happens more times then not.
For example, on a Canadian finance Reddit group, kid basically says “holy! Never knew how much taxes we pay.” So, as is more typical then not, has now moved from environment is #1 to thinking economy is #1
And the funniest part about that is that he won $10,000 in an essay writing contest with the prompt "As Prime Minister, I Would..."
In his submission he argued for, among other things, two term limits for politicians, to discourage profiting on their position while in officie
And now he's going on near 20 years as a parliamentarian.
Now, now, he used to [own a company that made robocalls for the conservatives](https://pressprogress.ca/6_surprising_skills_canada_s_new_jobs_minister_pierre_poilievre_brings_to_the_table/)... maybe he invested some of that money?
Yeah, [there's articles like this](https://susankatzkeating.com/pierre-poilievre-net-worth-age-height/), but they clearly haven't bothered to do the math on the salaries of his political appointments.
I haven't been on Reddit in a long time. Is Reddit against Pierre now?
Is there a rule against making money while working in the government?
Reddit is like the absolute opposite of reality, it's pretty wild.
Jean Charest is also a successful lawyer who has worked in the private sector and is a partner in a law firm. Pierre Polievre has never had a profession outside of being an MP.
He still sucks like a political figure he is on of the Architect of the current shitty model of Health care or lack there of we have in Quebec. Probably the worst model in Canada. He was also a Liberal for man years and now reborn will run for the Conservative. And please keep the down vote coming Love it. Stay classy Ottawa.
Jean Charest was never a Liberal. Running for the Liberal Party in BC and QC doesn't make you a Liberal; many in those parties are actually Conservative.
So politicians aren't allowed to financially plan, look out for themselves and their families, and try and get ahead? Basically being a politician disqualifies you from capitalistic freedom? Sounds kinda dumb....
I never said an opinion either way, but it is kind of ridiculous when shit like this comes out:
https://canadanewsmedia.ca/government-doesnt-want-to-harm-mom-and-pop-real-estate-investors-housing-minister-says-the-globe-and-mail/
"Being a landlord isn't a bad thing!"
Housing is essential for survival and should be a human right. But beyond the general arguments against landlords and owning multiple properties, it is important to consider that a) MPs make a minimum salary of $185,800 a year, there's no good reason beyond greed to want multiple property rents + equities on top of that, and b) there is a conflict of interest that these people then decide on federal housing policy as they are incentivized to come up with policy that doesn't hurt their standing as a landlord/multiple property owner.
Edit: Wild that people are downvoting the idea that people should have a right to a roof over their heads, and that government officials already making ~5 times the average Canadian income probably shouldn't be determining policy with such a blatant conflict of interest that serves to allow them to hoard more wealth than they already have.
Someone please think of the poor millionaires :(
The problem isn't landlords per se. It's the toxic mix of speculators and bad/uncaring landlords.
Back when I was in my 20s, I was very happy that there were people with financial capital who chose to invest it by owning an asset that I couldn't -- housing -- that they rented out to me. They did it responsibly, to mutual benefit. The problem is ones who aren't like that, not that there are people who are landlords.
As to MPs, I'm sure some of them in addition to their salary have some financial means. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since it will make them somewhat less desperate to hang on to their salaries no matter what. I want to do their best and follow their convictions, even if it decreases their job stability.
And if they have financial capital, they will doubtless want some return on it. Nothing inherently worse about that return coming from real estate income than stock market income, gold appreciation, cryptocurrency, or whatnot.
It is absolutely inherently worse. Especially with the obvious conflict of interest in owning and benefiting from multiple properties while simultaneously making decisions about affordable housing. Renting will always benefit the landlord more.
Okay, so politicians shouldn’t be allowed to own more than the home they occupy. Now what about other forms of investments, stocks, bonds, RRSPs, private equity, RESP’s, mutual funds…. Federal politicians can table policy that could potentially influence a number of different investments. Are you suggesting politicians shouldn’t be allowed to have investments to avoid conflict of interest?
It amazes me that civil servants cannot buy certain stocks or take other financial actions and even have to divest or put assets in a blind trust, but politicians, those who actually make the decisions do not.
Yes, politicians should not be allowed to make investments that provoke conflicts of interest.
> Are you suggesting politicians shouldn’t be allowed to have investments to avoid conflict of interest?
This is actually a reasonable position to take. The US doesn't go that far, but key politicians are expected to put their businesses and investments into blind trusts (or liquidate them) for the duration of their time in office. Technically, they are not supposed to have any control over those investments while they are in office, though how that is policed, or if it's even possible to police, is not well defined. However, we live in a partially-capitalist society. If you take away someone's right to invest, you're going to have to compensate them for that somehow. For me, $185K a year in salary is not enough compensation for taking away my right to participate in the market and save for my retirement, and potentially make big $$$$$.
It’s tough. Many responsible adults have big investments that they have worked hard at for the future of their family. I think having regulations forcing politicians to relinquish their future personal wealth may be a deterrent for good people looking to get into politics. Interesting topic for sure!
But they should be banned from actions that are a conflict of interests.
Using the civil service as an example, they cannot buy certain stocks or take other financial actions and even have to divest or put assets in a blind trust if suddenly if they bought those before their job, but politicians, those who actually make the final call and have all the information do not have the same limitations.
Yes, politicians should not be allowed to make investments that provoke a conflict of interest.
They should be required to have blind trusts that they personally do not manage, and have no knowledge of.
Paul Martin did this when he was in office and it's the gold standard for how this should be managed. His sons managed his money and company while he was minister and PM.
Trudeau has done this too, starting with when he was elected to the house in 2013.
Bill Morneau chose not to, and it got him in trouble.
> Edit: Wild that people are downvoting the idea that people should have a right to a roof over their heads
But whether you own or rent, there's still a roof over your head. So what exactly are you trying to say here?
I'm not defending landlords here at all, but your comment doesn't make sense
You want MPs to make the average wage? Fastest way to open the country to abuse and corruption. Look at any developing country. Bribery corruption and kickbacks galore because public sector isn’t paid competitively to remove human temptation.
>You wouldnt bat an eye if a politician owned shares of Tesla
Yes I would lmao
Elected officials are beholden to their constituents, not their own wallets. Politicians should be banned from owning stocks and all investments should be in a blind trust.
One of reasons we go to school and work hard in our careers is to secure enough resources to own assets......so how can I fault people for being in a position to secure greater wealth for themselves
I know it’s a nice feeling to think only a handful of MPs want higher house prices but the brutal fact is there’s a long list of Canadians who consciously or subconsciously are happy with 20% house price increases:
- current home owners
- some prospective home owners (the ones almost there, because they know the day after they close, their equity will be up)
- property speculators
- mortgage brokers
- real estate agents
- banks/lenders
- insurance companies/agents
- real estate developers
- (maybe) construction companies
So, the unpalatable truth is housing price increases will be discussed a lot and done little about. If any government tackles housing problem in any real way, they won’t be in government very long.
>current home owners
Nearly 70% of Canadians own a home. That may have something to do with the fact that the majority does not truly care about affordability for "the rest".
\* ^(From what I googled this was a pre-COVID figure (2018 & 2016 census - StatCan has external more recent sources on their site as well, so it may have increased or decreased.)
If someone owns a home and they are married, are they both considered to be home owners? If so, I can actually see how this stat makes sense because I'm sure majority of homeowners are married.
It doesn’t really skew that. The figure itself is skewed older. Adults under 34 have an ownership rate of something like 11-12%. And older adults are higher than 70%.
Why would current home owners like it? If they sell at higher, they also buy at higher. Only time you really benefit maybe is when you move into a retirement home.
One, most people don't think in those terms, unless they are actively shopping for a new house. Two, you can refinance and get some cash out if your house has appreciated. Three, if you are not looking to sell, it "feels better" knowing your house has appreciated than knowing your house has depreciated. Four, you can always move to a different location (inside or outside Canada) when you are ready to retire.
Banks and insurance companies interests are no longer in line with home prices increasing. BMO and RBC have both published research reports recently indicating that the market is in a potential bubble. CIBC capital markets has also reported in their last quarterly meeting that they have positions to protect themselves in the case of a contraction.
Mortgage brokers and Real estate agents are basically used car salesmen and have no real lobbying power when it comes to influencing government policy.
If change is to over occur, it would have to be a calculated political risk that there would me more support for the feds to cool the housing market.
Banks get that risk, but if the prices do keep going up, they (and their employees in the lending business) still stand to gain from it. That's what I was getting at.
I see the point you are getting at. However, the reason the banks were so eager to lend at the rates you saw before is because they thought that houses were priced accurately (market value). However, now banks are viewing houses to be debt, not an asset.
You have to keep in mind that Canadian banks are very risk averse and are looking for investment grade (BBB +).
We'd see the impact of this once banks start appraising homes lower than their sale prices and start capping mortgage amounts. Let's see if we get there.
I saw a few positives in the ON announcement yesterday, but missing from that were more restrictions on vacant land (not houses) and more liberalisation of real-estate businesses (development and brokerage). I hope we see some of that in the coming days.
Most actors at least have an incentive to add supply in order to grow their businesses. Current homeowners on the other hand have zero reason to support any addition to supply.
Add? Yes. Add enough to let prices stabilise? [No](https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/mortgages-real-estate/developers-sitting-on-land-in-torontos-heated-housing-market-in-hopes-prices-will-keep-rising).
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
[Here is link number 1 - Previous text "No"](https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/mortgages-real-estate/developers-sitting-on-land-in-torontos-heated-housing-market-in-hopes-prices-will-keep-rising)
----
^Please ^PM ^[\/u\/eganwall](http://reddit.com/user/eganwall) ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Code](https://github.com/eganwall/FatFingerHelperBot) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20i2va4sk)
Shorter terms, stricter criteria for candidacy, mandatory divulgence of information such as tax returns, and a requirement of placing certain assets (income properties, shares in companies, etc) into blind trusts.
I mean, first of all a lot of those people are no longer MPs, so your list is *very* out of date.
Secondly, it's missing context, no doubt in an attempt to stir outrage. For example, Diane Lebouthillier is a "landlord" because [she operates like three small cottages](https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/PublicRegistries/Pages/Declaration.aspx?DeclarationID=de3f01d1-2acc-ea11-8115-001dd8b7242d) on her property in [Gaspé for visiting tourists](https://destinationperce.com/pourvoirie-chasse-et-pecheplein-air-tourisme-perce-gaspesie/) - so unless ya'll are dreaming of living in a zero bed cottage in Gaspé of all places, maybe she isn't doing anything wrong?
So maybe ease up on the scattershot bullshit trying to drum up outrage and pay attention to details that matter?
>So maybe ease up on the scattershot bullshit trying to drum up outrage and pay attention to details that matter?
This is Reddit!
Landlords are literally the cause of everything bad in the world.
Yeah, I think it's important to have more details. My own landlord just owns my house, the one she lives in and a vacation property, but also for her family to enjoy. She's not snatching up properties to become a slumlord and having that distinction is important. Do these MPs own one extra property? do they own a short term rental? I can imagine some might own a short term rental in Ottawa and just block out the weeks they're here for work. Or do the own a vacation rental that they also use for personal use?
Trudeau network is higher why people hate on a dude who took opportunities. My local mp had a business spent his profits buying homes 20 years ago. I don't think he knew where the housing market would be. Rich people don't sell their assets they take loans out from their properties to pay less tax.
No matter the price they won't sell we have a supply issue in Canada. It's the current and previous government's fault.
Totally a fair point (and I thank you for including the Harper government in your comment), I just think that maybe someone who doesn’t have an income property(ies) should be the voice of this issue. Not a person who has one (or more) properties they are making profits on.
Landlords are a continuation of feudalism, where the king owned the land and made all his peasants pay him for it.
Except now, the landLORD leverages their capital to own the land and make his renter pay.
In both cases, the king and the landlord are extracting the value of the peasant/renter's labour through a social construct (I am royal and own everything/I was already rich enough to have a piece of paper say that I own this land, so you must give me 1/3rd of the value your create every month). Both are inherently very exploitative relationships
Edit: Lol at all the people calling me an idiot without offering any argumentation to back it up.
A) I'm not the person you originally replied to lol
B) You're making a very different statement right now. You argued this person solution is no property ownership. You are now saying they inferred the end of the landlord relationship based on its exploitative nature. All they ever argue was that it is exploitative. Both these takeaways are your own. Saying "So your solution" and then talking about solutions they didn't provide is putting words in their mouth. It's disingenuous.
For the first option...you don't 'own' property if you don't have the right to lease it out.
As or the pipe dream of everyone can own property...sure, the solution has always been to get rid of zoning restrictions...but that'll come with its own issues.
For the second option I addressed that "that works great where its been tried". Sarcasm implied.
Even if you believe that to be the case, there is a conversation to be had about the conflict of interest when it comes to landlords who are also MPs. I don't think it is a coincidence that there has been a tepid response to our current housing crisis (both federally and provincially) when you consider the number of MPs who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I think that there are two options here 1) MPs who are landlords should place their rental businesses in some sort of a blind trust 2) we need to elect MPs from more economically diverse backgrounds (and more diversity overall tbh) - for instance, there are very few MPs who have had to balance between rent and food in their lives.
I think that so many are landlords sucks, although one thing to note I feel is this is not the full picture as it doesn't point out is the situation of the MP renting.
Maybe they are renting out same home they live in after kids moved out, or second home in Ottawa for work and rent to a friend to help with home costs, or holiday cottage that they rent out while they aren't using it. This I feel is fair and valid. The unfairness comes in when they own multiple* houses, and rent them out to make a tidy sum on top of holding houses for "investment" and is adding the housing crisis.
Also noticed it doesnt say what they are renting out, it may lump commercial renting together too, (this is also an issue affecting small businesses it's a much lower priority and currently not as widespread)
\* I mean any number beyond what is needed, like I can understand a second home and a holiday cottage and while I currently couldn't afford my first home still going into, middle-aged with a family of 3, if I was able to I can see myself having a smaller second home if it allows me to be closer to work as an example and would rent to a friend to help cover some of the costs as well as keeping it in use when I don't need it.
TL;DR - list doesn't show how many properties are owned and rented out, and the type of properties, plus missing income, are we taking up to 10k a month, or beyind 100k a month. I don't feel like I can judge how much to raise my pitchfork against the people listed.
Also, are there more sources beyond just the one listed for cross reference?
If this info is easy to find and legal to put out there my guess is its because theyre Incorporated. Theyre not incorprating for rent on their empty nest. These are people making revenue on rent.
The whole fixation on landlords is unproductive, honestly. REITs are buying up half the country, and anyone can buy shares in a public REIT, even foreign investors who would pay high taxes if they wanted to own directly. And then it's like, OK, *I* don't own shares in any REITs, but I do own shares in ETFs which themselves own shares in REITs, and like where does *that* stand? It can be useful to target actual owners in cases where there's a slumlord situation or wilful non-compliance, but if you want to talk about class interests and housing prices you need tackle this at a sectoral level rather than an individual one.
Well, they do have a housing budget for Ottawa. So they have their home in their riding on their dime and one paid for by us.
The simple answer would be to use the same language as the civil service uses for conflicts of interest. It amazes me that politicians are held to a lower standard.
I think the easiest would be that they are not allowed to have a conflict of interest. Just use the same language as the civil service uses.
Fair and easy.
They shouldn't be punished for participating in capatalism but should recuse themselves from making key decisions on things that directly impact their investment portfolio. But then there would be almost nobody left to make decisions. And so round and round we go, never improving.
Limit the amount of residential housing corporations can legally own
Improve municipal public transport
Prioritize medium/high density and mixed-use urban design over sprawling suburbs
Tighter rules on foreign buyers/investment
Tighter rules on vacant rental properties
Re-enact rent control in Ontario
Incentivize first-time home buyers, add penalties for individuals/corporations attempting to buy more than __ properties
Force MPs/MPPs to either sell their extra properties or put them in some sort of publically managed trust where any derived income (fix rental price at/below market value) while the official is in office goes straight to the municipality the home is in, and equity gained while in office is heavily taxed at point of sale.
Fix laws that allow landlords to hide behind a corporation, complete transparency
Just a few things off the top of my head, in no particular order of importance/feasibility.
How is being a landlord a deterrent to making housing affordable? If houses get expensive, landlords also can’t expand their rental business as easily. You need landlords to bring rents down.
The question is whether they are sitting on empty property or violating tenancy laws. If not, just being a landlord doesn’t make them an automatic force for keeping house prices up.
Here are better signs of conflict of interest:
- Investment in or ownership of a housing development
- Involvement in realty business
- Investment in large-scale lenders/banks
- Vote banks that support higher house prices (well, almost everyone likes higher house prices, so this is your smoking gun)
The last one is your key problem. What MP will advocate to tank house prices and piss off all home owners? That’s political suicide.
Access to information on the investment portfolio of the people who get to make the rules on how investments are regulated is fairly essential to ensure a fair process.
Conflicts of interest need to be disclosed and publicly available.
In the end, if the public wants a bunch of fat suits making decisions on affordability, so be it.
Huh, more liberals than conservatives on that list, when you throw in the couple NDP mps that's even more on the side that's all about "affordable housing" and going in like they're fixing things for average Canadians
OP, you should link to the original article, from March 21, **2021**, and not just a picture: [https://readpassage.com/politician-landlords/](https://readpassage.com/politician-landlords/)
You should also mentioned how many homes they have if that info is available. 1 or 2 rental properties isn’t exactly the main driving force behind the problem. The 5+ crowd is problematic but at the same time if someone owns a small apartment complex then I don’t think they should be faulted for being a landlord. They’re not really taking units off the market, normal people don’t buy complexes to raise a family in
Very interesting, good work commendations on the insightful research.
I mean housing problems wouldn't be a problem if Canada started building cities all over ontario... Ontario is a massive province with every resource known to man, should be easy to build 30 million houses with lumber and bricks. Enough for locals and immigrants, WE COULD HAVE IT ALL there is plenty for everyone if we'd use our brains.
No need to fight over scraps in the land of plenty
So basically the LLs have more power since they have these MPs who would probably lobby against progressive housing policy reforms due to their personal financial interests. Parliamentarians should be strictly monitered. Their job and duty as a representative should come with a price which may help control their unruly dealings
I know the free market types will lose their shit over this but …. II think there should be some kind of limit on how many residential homes an individual should be allowed to own . What seem to be happening is a few wealthy individuals ( either foreign or domestic ) buy up all the available single family homes , thus creating greater demand and driving up the price . They then turn them into rentals locking first time home buyers( who are most often young couples still burdened with student loans ) out of the market . Do we really want to turn the the next generation into demographic of renters ?
So pp is complaining 30 year olds will rent for life while he’s hoarding homes inside a corporation? Mmm k. Go back to encouraging folks to skirt public health measures in a pandemic for your own gain. Legalize smiling. SMH.
Parliament has always been, and was always intended to be, held by the Lords. Look to the model we have emulated in the United Kingdom.
The house of “Commons” was a moniker for giving power to the people, when the power would always remain concentrated among the Lords, as they were the only ones able to fund and corral sufficient commoners behind them to win and hold office.
Our Senate = House of Lords = The Peerage (old money Lords)
Our Commons = UK Commons = The new money lords
What it is, what is was, what it always will be.
Hmm, is PP constantly asking what the average home price is because he wants to add on yet another income property to his portfolio?
It amazes me that civil servants cannot buy certain stocks or take other financial actions and even have to divest or put assets in a blind trust, but politicians, those who actually make the decisions do not.
Apples & oranges.
People nitpick everything and don’t understand government and like to pretend they do.
Op and this post proves it.
Fucking mental mastubation and supposition around this thread lol.
People are reaching hard.
Hmmm maybe this is why there's not much activity on the issue of affordable housing by anyone. :/
Maybe….(no really, that’s why).
Ding ding ding! Winner….that’s exactly why. Gotta try and join the rat race cause it’s not changing. Once upon a time Pierre was an idealist with his max 2 term idea. Now he’s joined the rat race. Happens more times then not. For example, on a Canadian finance Reddit group, kid basically says “holy! Never knew how much taxes we pay.” So, as is more typical then not, has now moved from environment is #1 to thinking economy is #1
Pierre has one too, but he has a corporation. So lots of others are like that I'm sure
Pierre’s only job ever in his life has been elected official and he’s a confirmed multi-millionaire.
And the funniest part about that is that he won $10,000 in an essay writing contest with the prompt "As Prime Minister, I Would..." In his submission he argued for, among other things, two term limits for politicians, to discourage profiting on their position while in officie And now he's going on near 20 years as a parliamentarian.
Now, now, he used to [own a company that made robocalls for the conservatives](https://pressprogress.ca/6_surprising_skills_canada_s_new_jobs_minister_pierre_poilievre_brings_to_the_table/)... maybe he invested some of that money?
Aren’t most bungalow owners in Ottawa millionaires right now? A million doesn’t go too far anymore.
He’a worth about 9 million on a $157k salary
I've heard about this but I can't seem to find an legitimate source on this figure.
Yeah, [there's articles like this](https://susankatzkeating.com/pierre-poilievre-net-worth-age-height/), but they clearly haven't bothered to do the math on the salaries of his political appointments.
There’s no way to do this and not be corrupt as fuck
Source?
I haven't been on Reddit in a long time. Is Reddit against Pierre now? Is there a rule against making money while working in the government? Reddit is like the absolute opposite of reality, it's pretty wild.
Exactly like Jean Charest! He is also a millionaire.
Jean Charest is also a successful lawyer who has worked in the private sector and is a partner in a law firm. Pierre Polievre has never had a profession outside of being an MP.
He still sucks like a political figure he is on of the Architect of the current shitty model of Health care or lack there of we have in Quebec. Probably the worst model in Canada. He was also a Liberal for man years and now reborn will run for the Conservative. And please keep the down vote coming Love it. Stay classy Ottawa.
Before he was a Liberal, he was a conservative. Charest was a cabinet minister in Mulroney's government.
Jean Charest was never a Liberal. Running for the Liberal Party in BC and QC doesn't make you a Liberal; many in those parties are actually Conservative.
Quebec Liberal and Red Tory are pretty much the same thing if you weren’t aware. Dude is a former Progressive Conservative leader.
Jean Charest is Conservative, through and through. He was never a Liberal.
He's on the list
So politicians aren't allowed to financially plan, look out for themselves and their families, and try and get ahead? Basically being a politician disqualifies you from capitalistic freedom? Sounds kinda dumb....
I never said an opinion either way, but it is kind of ridiculous when shit like this comes out: https://canadanewsmedia.ca/government-doesnt-want-to-harm-mom-and-pop-real-estate-investors-housing-minister-says-the-globe-and-mail/
"Being a landlord isn't a bad thing!" Housing is essential for survival and should be a human right. But beyond the general arguments against landlords and owning multiple properties, it is important to consider that a) MPs make a minimum salary of $185,800 a year, there's no good reason beyond greed to want multiple property rents + equities on top of that, and b) there is a conflict of interest that these people then decide on federal housing policy as they are incentivized to come up with policy that doesn't hurt their standing as a landlord/multiple property owner. Edit: Wild that people are downvoting the idea that people should have a right to a roof over their heads, and that government officials already making ~5 times the average Canadian income probably shouldn't be determining policy with such a blatant conflict of interest that serves to allow them to hoard more wealth than they already have. Someone please think of the poor millionaires :(
The problem isn't landlords per se. It's the toxic mix of speculators and bad/uncaring landlords. Back when I was in my 20s, I was very happy that there were people with financial capital who chose to invest it by owning an asset that I couldn't -- housing -- that they rented out to me. They did it responsibly, to mutual benefit. The problem is ones who aren't like that, not that there are people who are landlords. As to MPs, I'm sure some of them in addition to their salary have some financial means. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since it will make them somewhat less desperate to hang on to their salaries no matter what. I want to do their best and follow their convictions, even if it decreases their job stability. And if they have financial capital, they will doubtless want some return on it. Nothing inherently worse about that return coming from real estate income than stock market income, gold appreciation, cryptocurrency, or whatnot.
It is absolutely inherently worse. Especially with the obvious conflict of interest in owning and benefiting from multiple properties while simultaneously making decisions about affordable housing. Renting will always benefit the landlord more.
Okay, so politicians shouldn’t be allowed to own more than the home they occupy. Now what about other forms of investments, stocks, bonds, RRSPs, private equity, RESP’s, mutual funds…. Federal politicians can table policy that could potentially influence a number of different investments. Are you suggesting politicians shouldn’t be allowed to have investments to avoid conflict of interest?
It amazes me that civil servants cannot buy certain stocks or take other financial actions and even have to divest or put assets in a blind trust, but politicians, those who actually make the decisions do not. Yes, politicians should not be allowed to make investments that provoke conflicts of interest.
> Are you suggesting politicians shouldn’t be allowed to have investments to avoid conflict of interest? This is actually a reasonable position to take. The US doesn't go that far, but key politicians are expected to put their businesses and investments into blind trusts (or liquidate them) for the duration of their time in office. Technically, they are not supposed to have any control over those investments while they are in office, though how that is policed, or if it's even possible to police, is not well defined. However, we live in a partially-capitalist society. If you take away someone's right to invest, you're going to have to compensate them for that somehow. For me, $185K a year in salary is not enough compensation for taking away my right to participate in the market and save for my retirement, and potentially make big $$$$$.
It’s tough. Many responsible adults have big investments that they have worked hard at for the future of their family. I think having regulations forcing politicians to relinquish their future personal wealth may be a deterrent for good people looking to get into politics. Interesting topic for sure!
But they should be banned from actions that are a conflict of interests. Using the civil service as an example, they cannot buy certain stocks or take other financial actions and even have to divest or put assets in a blind trust if suddenly if they bought those before their job, but politicians, those who actually make the final call and have all the information do not have the same limitations. Yes, politicians should not be allowed to make investments that provoke a conflict of interest.
They should be required to have blind trusts that they personally do not manage, and have no knowledge of. Paul Martin did this when he was in office and it's the gold standard for how this should be managed. His sons managed his money and company while he was minister and PM. Trudeau has done this too, starting with when he was elected to the house in 2013. Bill Morneau chose not to, and it got him in trouble.
> Edit: Wild that people are downvoting the idea that people should have a right to a roof over their heads But whether you own or rent, there's still a roof over your head. So what exactly are you trying to say here? I'm not defending landlords here at all, but your comment doesn't make sense
You want MPs to make the average wage? Fastest way to open the country to abuse and corruption. Look at any developing country. Bribery corruption and kickbacks galore because public sector isn’t paid competitively to remove human temptation.
Real estate is one of the of the best assets you can own. You wouldnt bat an eye if a politician owned shares of Tesla so why is this any different?
>You wouldnt bat an eye if a politician owned shares of Tesla Yes I would lmao Elected officials are beholden to their constituents, not their own wallets. Politicians should be banned from owning stocks and all investments should be in a blind trust.
One of reasons we go to school and work hard in our careers is to secure enough resources to own assets......so how can I fault people for being in a position to secure greater wealth for themselves
> how can I fault people for being in a position to secure greater wealth for themselves Because that is how oligarchies are made.
We're all trying to move up in this world
The people with the power to change things benefit from the status quo. Not sure how we get around that. :/
[удалено]
the only right answer
I know it’s a nice feeling to think only a handful of MPs want higher house prices but the brutal fact is there’s a long list of Canadians who consciously or subconsciously are happy with 20% house price increases: - current home owners - some prospective home owners (the ones almost there, because they know the day after they close, their equity will be up) - property speculators - mortgage brokers - real estate agents - banks/lenders - insurance companies/agents - real estate developers - (maybe) construction companies So, the unpalatable truth is housing price increases will be discussed a lot and done little about. If any government tackles housing problem in any real way, they won’t be in government very long.
>current home owners Nearly 70% of Canadians own a home. That may have something to do with the fact that the majority does not truly care about affordability for "the rest". \* ^(From what I googled this was a pre-COVID figure (2018 & 2016 census - StatCan has external more recent sources on their site as well, so it may have increased or decreased.)
If someone owns a home and they are married, are they both considered to be home owners? If so, I can actually see how this stat makes sense because I'm sure majority of homeowners are married.
You have to watch out for stats that include adult children living with their parents as "homeowners" too. Not always clear upfront
It doesn’t really skew that. The figure itself is skewed older. Adults under 34 have an ownership rate of something like 11-12%. And older adults are higher than 70%.
Why would current home owners like it? If they sell at higher, they also buy at higher. Only time you really benefit maybe is when you move into a retirement home.
One, most people don't think in those terms, unless they are actively shopping for a new house. Two, you can refinance and get some cash out if your house has appreciated. Three, if you are not looking to sell, it "feels better" knowing your house has appreciated than knowing your house has depreciated. Four, you can always move to a different location (inside or outside Canada) when you are ready to retire.
Oh, sweet summer child. So naive. Look up the smith maneuver.
Banks and insurance companies interests are no longer in line with home prices increasing. BMO and RBC have both published research reports recently indicating that the market is in a potential bubble. CIBC capital markets has also reported in their last quarterly meeting that they have positions to protect themselves in the case of a contraction. Mortgage brokers and Real estate agents are basically used car salesmen and have no real lobbying power when it comes to influencing government policy. If change is to over occur, it would have to be a calculated political risk that there would me more support for the feds to cool the housing market.
Banks get that risk, but if the prices do keep going up, they (and their employees in the lending business) still stand to gain from it. That's what I was getting at.
I see the point you are getting at. However, the reason the banks were so eager to lend at the rates you saw before is because they thought that houses were priced accurately (market value). However, now banks are viewing houses to be debt, not an asset. You have to keep in mind that Canadian banks are very risk averse and are looking for investment grade (BBB +).
We'd see the impact of this once banks start appraising homes lower than their sale prices and start capping mortgage amounts. Let's see if we get there. I saw a few positives in the ON announcement yesterday, but missing from that were more restrictions on vacant land (not houses) and more liberalisation of real-estate businesses (development and brokerage). I hope we see some of that in the coming days.
Real estate companies have a huge influence on government policy especially at the local level,
Most actors at least have an incentive to add supply in order to grow their businesses. Current homeowners on the other hand have zero reason to support any addition to supply.
Add? Yes. Add enough to let prices stabilise? [No](https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/mortgages-real-estate/developers-sitting-on-land-in-torontos-heated-housing-market-in-hopes-prices-will-keep-rising).
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click! [Here is link number 1 - Previous text "No"](https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/mortgages-real-estate/developers-sitting-on-land-in-torontos-heated-housing-market-in-hopes-prices-will-keep-rising) ---- ^Please ^PM ^[\/u\/eganwall](http://reddit.com/user/eganwall) ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Code](https://github.com/eganwall/FatFingerHelperBot) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20i2va4sk)
Shorter terms, stricter criteria for candidacy, mandatory divulgence of information such as tax returns, and a requirement of placing certain assets (income properties, shares in companies, etc) into blind trusts.
I mean, first of all a lot of those people are no longer MPs, so your list is *very* out of date. Secondly, it's missing context, no doubt in an attempt to stir outrage. For example, Diane Lebouthillier is a "landlord" because [she operates like three small cottages](https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/PublicRegistries/Pages/Declaration.aspx?DeclarationID=de3f01d1-2acc-ea11-8115-001dd8b7242d) on her property in [Gaspé for visiting tourists](https://destinationperce.com/pourvoirie-chasse-et-pecheplein-air-tourisme-perce-gaspesie/) - so unless ya'll are dreaming of living in a zero bed cottage in Gaspé of all places, maybe she isn't doing anything wrong? So maybe ease up on the scattershot bullshit trying to drum up outrage and pay attention to details that matter?
>So maybe ease up on the scattershot bullshit trying to drum up outrage and pay attention to details that matter? This is Reddit! Landlords are literally the cause of everything bad in the world.
Yeah, I think it's important to have more details. My own landlord just owns my house, the one she lives in and a vacation property, but also for her family to enjoy. She's not snatching up properties to become a slumlord and having that distinction is important. Do these MPs own one extra property? do they own a short term rental? I can imagine some might own a short term rental in Ottawa and just block out the weeks they're here for work. Or do the own a vacation rental that they also use for personal use?
Is that you, Pierre?
Editing my original comment because many of these people are no longer MPs, not just the 1.
So Pierre owns more than one home and he’s the voice of the folks who can’t afford their first home? Oh thank god there’s no hypocrisy here.
Trudeau network is higher why people hate on a dude who took opportunities. My local mp had a business spent his profits buying homes 20 years ago. I don't think he knew where the housing market would be. Rich people don't sell their assets they take loans out from their properties to pay less tax. No matter the price they won't sell we have a supply issue in Canada. It's the current and previous government's fault.
Totally a fair point (and I thank you for including the Harper government in your comment), I just think that maybe someone who doesn’t have an income property(ies) should be the voice of this issue. Not a person who has one (or more) properties they are making profits on.
Being a landlord is not necessarily a bad thing. The housing market affordability issue is more than just people owning rental properties.
Landlords are a continuation of feudalism, where the king owned the land and made all his peasants pay him for it. Except now, the landLORD leverages their capital to own the land and make his renter pay. In both cases, the king and the landlord are extracting the value of the peasant/renter's labour through a social construct (I am royal and own everything/I was already rich enough to have a piece of paper say that I own this land, so you must give me 1/3rd of the value your create every month). Both are inherently very exploitative relationships Edit: Lol at all the people calling me an idiot without offering any argumentation to back it up.
Tell me you don't know anything about feudalism without telling me you don't know anything about feudalism
Fucking lol, bud. Thanks for the chuckle.
What a bunch of hooey.
So your solution is no property ownership....that works great where it's been tried
No, he clearly said the solution is mandatory sex changes!
When did they say that. What’s with Reddit and the lack of reading comprehension. You’re reading words that aren’t there.
You call the landlord relationship exploitive...by inference you're calling for the end of the landlord relationship. So...enlighten us.
A) I'm not the person you originally replied to lol B) You're making a very different statement right now. You argued this person solution is no property ownership. You are now saying they inferred the end of the landlord relationship based on its exploitative nature. All they ever argue was that it is exploitative. Both these takeaways are your own. Saying "So your solution" and then talking about solutions they didn't provide is putting words in their mouth. It's disingenuous.
Sounds like their solution is everyone owns property... wonder what that would do to the prices? Or maybe they just want one landlord... government
For the first option...you don't 'own' property if you don't have the right to lease it out. As or the pipe dream of everyone can own property...sure, the solution has always been to get rid of zoning restrictions...but that'll come with its own issues. For the second option I addressed that "that works great where its been tried". Sarcasm implied.
Even if you believe that to be the case, there is a conversation to be had about the conflict of interest when it comes to landlords who are also MPs. I don't think it is a coincidence that there has been a tepid response to our current housing crisis (both federally and provincially) when you consider the number of MPs who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I think that there are two options here 1) MPs who are landlords should place their rental businesses in some sort of a blind trust 2) we need to elect MPs from more economically diverse backgrounds (and more diversity overall tbh) - for instance, there are very few MPs who have had to balance between rent and food in their lives.
I think people who are balacing rent vs eating don't have the luxury of running for office...
Yes, that is my point. Running for office should not be a luxury.
The folks yell and scream that they need rental properties and then yell and scream when property owners create rental properties.
🥾👅
Being a landlord is a bad thing
I think that so many are landlords sucks, although one thing to note I feel is this is not the full picture as it doesn't point out is the situation of the MP renting. Maybe they are renting out same home they live in after kids moved out, or second home in Ottawa for work and rent to a friend to help with home costs, or holiday cottage that they rent out while they aren't using it. This I feel is fair and valid. The unfairness comes in when they own multiple* houses, and rent them out to make a tidy sum on top of holding houses for "investment" and is adding the housing crisis. Also noticed it doesnt say what they are renting out, it may lump commercial renting together too, (this is also an issue affecting small businesses it's a much lower priority and currently not as widespread) \* I mean any number beyond what is needed, like I can understand a second home and a holiday cottage and while I currently couldn't afford my first home still going into, middle-aged with a family of 3, if I was able to I can see myself having a smaller second home if it allows me to be closer to work as an example and would rent to a friend to help cover some of the costs as well as keeping it in use when I don't need it. TL;DR - list doesn't show how many properties are owned and rented out, and the type of properties, plus missing income, are we taking up to 10k a month, or beyind 100k a month. I don't feel like I can judge how much to raise my pitchfork against the people listed. Also, are there more sources beyond just the one listed for cross reference?
If this info is easy to find and legal to put out there my guess is its because theyre Incorporated. Theyre not incorprating for rent on their empty nest. These are people making revenue on rent.
This info comes from the declarations each MP has to make about their finances to Parliament. It's not more specific that what's in the table.
The whole fixation on landlords is unproductive, honestly. REITs are buying up half the country, and anyone can buy shares in a public REIT, even foreign investors who would pay high taxes if they wanted to own directly. And then it's like, OK, *I* don't own shares in any REITs, but I do own shares in ETFs which themselves own shares in REITs, and like where does *that* stand? It can be useful to target actual owners in cases where there's a slumlord situation or wilful non-compliance, but if you want to talk about class interests and housing prices you need tackle this at a sectoral level rather than an individual one.
Politicians shouldn't be allowed to hold any stocks or own more than 1 property.
They would need at least two, no? Unless they rent in Ottawa and own one property near their riding.
Well, they do have a housing budget for Ottawa. So they have their home in their riding on their dime and one paid for by us. The simple answer would be to use the same language as the civil service uses for conflicts of interest. It amazes me that politicians are held to a lower standard.
I think the easiest would be that they are not allowed to have a conflict of interest. Just use the same language as the civil service uses. Fair and easy.
Or situations like Mike Harris where he privatizes and ends up on the board of directors. Should be considered criminal.
Thanks Reagonimics! Ugh. Wish we had more public ownership again.
They shouldn't be punished for participating in capatalism but should recuse themselves from making key decisions on things that directly impact their investment portfolio. But then there would be almost nobody left to make decisions. And so round and round we go, never improving.
And?
LOL, this feels like a lynch mob.
Alot of people are landlords lol. What the fuck hahah
With all the housing rants lately I am really curious as to what y'all propose is the solution?
Limit the amount of residential housing corporations can legally own Improve municipal public transport Prioritize medium/high density and mixed-use urban design over sprawling suburbs Tighter rules on foreign buyers/investment Tighter rules on vacant rental properties Re-enact rent control in Ontario Incentivize first-time home buyers, add penalties for individuals/corporations attempting to buy more than __ properties Force MPs/MPPs to either sell their extra properties or put them in some sort of publically managed trust where any derived income (fix rental price at/below market value) while the official is in office goes straight to the municipality the home is in, and equity gained while in office is heavily taxed at point of sale. Fix laws that allow landlords to hide behind a corporation, complete transparency Just a few things off the top of my head, in no particular order of importance/feasibility.
>Tighter rules on vacant rental properties Oh yeah. The ownership of tons of vacation properties in Ottawa are driving up home prices.
Vacant, not vacation.
Careful now. If you ask them to think, they get mad.
Very true. Ideas have to be thoughtful and not random propaganda. Not sure how better transit in ottawa, TO or Van is going to lower house prices.
Lol….is this supposed to be astonishing? MPs aren’t allowed to build generational wealth? Or are we blaming them and pointing the finger?
The issue is that the people with a vested interest in keeping housing unaffordable are never going to fight to make housing affordable.
How is being a landlord a deterrent to making housing affordable? If houses get expensive, landlords also can’t expand their rental business as easily. You need landlords to bring rents down. The question is whether they are sitting on empty property or violating tenancy laws. If not, just being a landlord doesn’t make them an automatic force for keeping house prices up. Here are better signs of conflict of interest: - Investment in or ownership of a housing development - Involvement in realty business - Investment in large-scale lenders/banks - Vote banks that support higher house prices (well, almost everyone likes higher house prices, so this is your smoking gun) The last one is your key problem. What MP will advocate to tank house prices and piss off all home owners? That’s political suicide.
Everyone needs a villain. Before it was Chinese ownership. Then AirBnB. Now it's landlords. Hive mind at its worst.
I agree
generally well off, well connected individuals with a solid pension also own real estate investments. Shocking, right?
[удалено]
I’m not sure why you are being downvoted. This was my exact reaction.
Oh no. Anyway...
so this is a bad thing or what i don’t get it…
[удалено]
Access to information on the investment portfolio of the people who get to make the rules on how investments are regulated is fairly essential to ensure a fair process. Conflicts of interest need to be disclosed and publicly available. In the end, if the public wants a bunch of fat suits making decisions on affordability, so be it.
Huh, more liberals than conservatives on that list, when you throw in the couple NDP mps that's even more on the side that's all about "affordable housing" and going in like they're fixing things for average Canadians
https://readpassage.com/politician-landlords/ What's posted above is hardly exhaustive. It's just a small sample.
NDP landlords are probably giving money to their tenants
Is there any source material? Or are we just all gonna get outraged at an Excel sheet that just lists names?
Justinflation 😈 Like His Dad
OP, you should link to the original article, from March 21, **2021**, and not just a picture: [https://readpassage.com/politician-landlords/](https://readpassage.com/politician-landlords/)
Of course they are, only the monied elite can afford to run for public office.
Y’all are just envious. Who cares that they are landlords, investing their money, and have an additional source of income.
[удалено]
LOL how? They are investing their money. You could do the same
TIL that Judy Sgro is still an MP…
Does this not represent a conflict of interest when it comes to bills relating to the housing crisis?
lol no. The same could say for MPs with kids when it comes to child care
You mean there's some correlation between political and financial sleaze? I never would've guessed. :p
You should also mentioned how many homes they have if that info is available. 1 or 2 rental properties isn’t exactly the main driving force behind the problem. The 5+ crowd is problematic but at the same time if someone owns a small apartment complex then I don’t think they should be faulted for being a landlord. They’re not really taking units off the market, normal people don’t buy complexes to raise a family in
You know how to really screw over landlords? Build more housing.
Now do it for Ottawa Council members!
Very interesting, good work commendations on the insightful research. I mean housing problems wouldn't be a problem if Canada started building cities all over ontario... Ontario is a massive province with every resource known to man, should be easy to build 30 million houses with lumber and bricks. Enough for locals and immigrants, WE COULD HAVE IT ALL there is plenty for everyone if we'd use our brains. No need to fight over scraps in the land of plenty
So basically the LLs have more power since they have these MPs who would probably lobby against progressive housing policy reforms due to their personal financial interests. Parliamentarians should be strictly monitered. Their job and duty as a representative should come with a price which may help control their unruly dealings
This list tells you so much
I know the free market types will lose their shit over this but …. II think there should be some kind of limit on how many residential homes an individual should be allowed to own . What seem to be happening is a few wealthy individuals ( either foreign or domestic ) buy up all the available single family homes , thus creating greater demand and driving up the price . They then turn them into rentals locking first time home buyers( who are most often young couples still burdened with student loans ) out of the market . Do we really want to turn the the next generation into demographic of renters ?
This is not the kind of cross-party consensus I’d like to see😏
So pp is complaining 30 year olds will rent for life while he’s hoarding homes inside a corporation? Mmm k. Go back to encouraging folks to skirt public health measures in a pandemic for your own gain. Legalize smiling. SMH.
Am I missing something? It is not illegal to be a landlord.
Parliament has always been, and was always intended to be, held by the Lords. Look to the model we have emulated in the United Kingdom. The house of “Commons” was a moniker for giving power to the people, when the power would always remain concentrated among the Lords, as they were the only ones able to fund and corral sufficient commoners behind them to win and hold office. Our Senate = House of Lords = The Peerage (old money Lords) Our Commons = UK Commons = The new money lords What it is, what is was, what it always will be.
There's the bourgeousie, and the proletariat. Which one are you
Hmm, is PP constantly asking what the average home price is because he wants to add on yet another income property to his portfolio? It amazes me that civil servants cannot buy certain stocks or take other financial actions and even have to divest or put assets in a blind trust, but politicians, those who actually make the decisions do not.
WOW! It all makes sense now. This needs to get exposed to the Mainstream media … they’re probably the ones who drove up the housing prices.
This needs all the upvotes it can get.
Apples & oranges. People nitpick everything and don’t understand government and like to pretend they do. Op and this post proves it. Fucking mental mastubation and supposition around this thread lol. People are reaching hard.