When I heard a brief description of the housing platform on CBC radio this morning, I was equally enthused. I am in the building industry and those of us who care about affordable and supportive housing have been saying this for several years: we need a housing effort similar to post-WWII. We can't diddle around the margins.....we need to hit this problem with a sledgehammer, and it looks like the Libs did just that.
The DCC issue is more complex. Typically, DCC money goes to municipalities to pay for future capital expenditures for local service upgrades like water and sewer as the population grows. Every new home puts pressure on those capacities. So if the Feds want to cut DCCs, they need to compensate the municipalities for loss of infrastructure revenues. Munis are extremely limited as to how they can raise funds for capex.
That is another subject: the muni revenue system needs a huge overhaul and there are proposals out there. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities suggest a new Municipal Growth Framework. https://fcm.ca/en/focus-areas/municipal-growth-framework
The nuance to DCCs is that many municipalities have shifted to them as a way to pay for infrastructure instead of raising that money through property taxes. The infrastructure absolutely needs to be paid for, but we have decided on an explicit policy of shifting that cost away from existing residents and into a tax on new development.
I’ve seen some pretty persuasive stuff that one of the healthiest things we could do would be to deeply cut, or even eliminate DCCs, and shift the difference to property taxes
Could not agree more about Paul Chiang,. The Liberal Party's response to MP Chiang's stupid remarks is not sufficiently severe. An apology is not enough for a threat to an PC candidate's human rights. The remarks were reprehensible to anyone familiar with how the PRC treats overseas Chinese dissidents and Paul Chiang surely would have an inkling.
Given his background as a political outsider, Mark Carney may not be quite as aware. But the failure to throw Chiang out will haunt Carney. If one changed the language ever so slightly, to turn a Saudi dissident over to the Saudi authorities (think Kashoggi) , to turn a Russian dissident over to Russian authorities (think Maginsky) , to throw a American critical of Trump/ Musk over to the US Consulate...none of these would be acceptable. Canadian ballots are secret and there will be a number of folks who may tell pollsters one thing and vote differently.
I am not plugged into the Liberal Party, but someone who wants to ensure a Carney victory should probably pay a bit more attention.
Your comment re: Carney Tomas a political outsider touches on something that we don’t know the full scope of: how much of Carney’s political chops are influenced by his time in Britain? His “support” of Chiang had the flavour of the usual British “this MP has my unconditional support” which, if a PM says this, you can be sure that MP will fall on their sword by the end of the week. And lo, as I write this, Chiang has fallen on his sword.
I understand that you don’t want to drop a sitting MP without due process. And of course a bad joke is turned into advocating for kidnapping by the press and the Conservatives. But Chiang has become a liability. Perhaps he is a lock for this particular riding, but it is not worth the liability. And it gives a clear message to other candidate MPs if you drop him, always take the high road.
Keeping him will distract the Liberals from what they really should be talking about, like the excellent housing approach. But I suspect that the comments here, mine included, will be about Chiang.
A “bad joke” ?? Canadians really have to start asking some hard questions. At what point does the voting public start questioning the assumption that The Liberal Party of Canada deserves your vote no matter what they say, do, or don’t do. Today’s bad joke can be tomorrow’s bad news. Hopefully we don’t get to learn the hard way. A fourth Liberal term will be the end of Canada.
The Liberals' new housing plan is truly great and hands down better than anything else put forward by any other party. The public builder component is awesome, though I note with caution that the entity will be mandated to build housing itself, but will also direct funding to other builders. The latter type of effort generally results in fragmented accountability and results. The Liberals still can't bring themselves to admit they are the authors of our housing crisis but maybe (big maybe) they can help to get us out of it.
And absolutely none of the above matters at all in comparison to Carney's decision to stand by Paul Chiang. Either you put country first or you put party first. Carney, like Trudeau, is choosing Chiang, the CCP and Liberal fortunes over Canada. This is a revolting decision that speaks volumes about his character and motivations, more than anything else he's said or done.
It's the nail in the coffin in terms of where my vote will go.
Without addressing lending practices policy it’s going to be tricking to solve the housing crisis. Someone in Carneys resume is the 08 crisis but did he solve it or flood the economy with cheap debt and transfer the 08 GFC into the current housing crisis?
Sure there is a housing supply issue especially for low income housing. But land is not supply constrained in this country and land costs is a big contributor to overall housing costs. So you can’t just crank the dial on supply and expect the housing crisis to go away.
That said it’s the best any party has put out there imo.
When I heard a brief description of the housing platform on CBC radio this morning, I was equally enthused. I am in the building industry and those of us who care about affordable and supportive housing have been saying this for several years: we need a housing effort similar to post-WWII. We can't diddle around the margins.....we need to hit this problem with a sledgehammer, and it looks like the Libs did just that.
The DCC issue is more complex. Typically, DCC money goes to municipalities to pay for future capital expenditures for local service upgrades like water and sewer as the population grows. Every new home puts pressure on those capacities. So if the Feds want to cut DCCs, they need to compensate the municipalities for loss of infrastructure revenues. Munis are extremely limited as to how they can raise funds for capex.
That is another subject: the muni revenue system needs a huge overhaul and there are proposals out there. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities suggest a new Municipal Growth Framework. https://fcm.ca/en/focus-areas/municipal-growth-framework
The nuance to DCCs is that many municipalities have shifted to them as a way to pay for infrastructure instead of raising that money through property taxes. The infrastructure absolutely needs to be paid for, but we have decided on an explicit policy of shifting that cost away from existing residents and into a tax on new development.
I’ve seen some pretty persuasive stuff that one of the healthiest things we could do would be to deeply cut, or even eliminate DCCs, and shift the difference to property taxes
Could not agree more about Paul Chiang,. The Liberal Party's response to MP Chiang's stupid remarks is not sufficiently severe. An apology is not enough for a threat to an PC candidate's human rights. The remarks were reprehensible to anyone familiar with how the PRC treats overseas Chinese dissidents and Paul Chiang surely would have an inkling.
Given his background as a political outsider, Mark Carney may not be quite as aware. But the failure to throw Chiang out will haunt Carney. If one changed the language ever so slightly, to turn a Saudi dissident over to the Saudi authorities (think Kashoggi) , to turn a Russian dissident over to Russian authorities (think Maginsky) , to throw a American critical of Trump/ Musk over to the US Consulate...none of these would be acceptable. Canadian ballots are secret and there will be a number of folks who may tell pollsters one thing and vote differently.
I am not plugged into the Liberal Party, but someone who wants to ensure a Carney victory should probably pay a bit more attention.
Your comment re: Carney Tomas a political outsider touches on something that we don’t know the full scope of: how much of Carney’s political chops are influenced by his time in Britain? His “support” of Chiang had the flavour of the usual British “this MP has my unconditional support” which, if a PM says this, you can be sure that MP will fall on their sword by the end of the week. And lo, as I write this, Chiang has fallen on his sword.
*as
I understand that you don’t want to drop a sitting MP without due process. And of course a bad joke is turned into advocating for kidnapping by the press and the Conservatives. But Chiang has become a liability. Perhaps he is a lock for this particular riding, but it is not worth the liability. And it gives a clear message to other candidate MPs if you drop him, always take the high road.
Keeping him will distract the Liberals from what they really should be talking about, like the excellent housing approach. But I suspect that the comments here, mine included, will be about Chiang.
A “bad joke” ?? Canadians really have to start asking some hard questions. At what point does the voting public start questioning the assumption that The Liberal Party of Canada deserves your vote no matter what they say, do, or don’t do. Today’s bad joke can be tomorrow’s bad news. Hopefully we don’t get to learn the hard way. A fourth Liberal term will be the end of Canada.
I see that we have reached the level of “the end of Canada if the party I do not like is in power”. Desperation is not a good look.
EXACTLY what is needed to keep the momentum going!
thanks for this excellent, informed analysis Evan.
BC under Eby and Kathlon has been working on housing for a while now and Trudeau Jr was getting on board. The BC Housing plan has been praised by many. However there is Trudeau Sr deserves credit for fixing it in th 70s in similar fashion. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/weve-solved-the-housing-crisis-before-we-can-do-it-again
The Liberals' new housing plan is truly great and hands down better than anything else put forward by any other party. The public builder component is awesome, though I note with caution that the entity will be mandated to build housing itself, but will also direct funding to other builders. The latter type of effort generally results in fragmented accountability and results. The Liberals still can't bring themselves to admit they are the authors of our housing crisis but maybe (big maybe) they can help to get us out of it.
And absolutely none of the above matters at all in comparison to Carney's decision to stand by Paul Chiang. Either you put country first or you put party first. Carney, like Trudeau, is choosing Chiang, the CCP and Liberal fortunes over Canada. This is a revolting decision that speaks volumes about his character and motivations, more than anything else he's said or done.
It's the nail in the coffin in terms of where my vote will go.
These lieberals are so original with there announcements ?????? Copying all conservative ideas again. Vote the lieberals out too zero party status.
"Sincerely stupid" does almost cover the Chiang decision. It's also morally reprehensible.
Without addressing lending practices policy it’s going to be tricking to solve the housing crisis. Someone in Carneys resume is the 08 crisis but did he solve it or flood the economy with cheap debt and transfer the 08 GFC into the current housing crisis?
Sure there is a housing supply issue especially for low income housing. But land is not supply constrained in this country and land costs is a big contributor to overall housing costs. So you can’t just crank the dial on supply and expect the housing crisis to go away.
That said it’s the best any party has put out there imo.