[innsertnamehere]

I oppose any kind of public assistance for home ownership. I think we should rather invest a lot more in social housing or rent-geared-to-income housing. I have a friend who is 69 and cannot retire, because you cannot apply unless you are already destitute, and then you still have to wait 8 to 10 years for an apartment.

RGI housing is wildly expensive. Like, absurdly so. Think $500k in subsidy *per unit*. A $1 billion RGI program would deliver maybe 2,000 units. It's not practical at scale, and ultimately serves only a small proportion of the population as you note.

If we want to deliver housing affordability to millions of Canadians, we need to either create a massive social housing machine with hundreds of billions in subsidies (impractical), or find ways for market-rate housing to be delivered in a way which the median Canadian can afford. The latter requires Canadians to be able to access the required capital (raise median incomes and provide appropriate support for access to mortgages which Canadians can afford and which cover the cost of new housing) and to lower the cost to deliver new housing, which requires lower tax and regulatory burdens.

The big problem to me with the Liberal housing platform is that it focuses on continuing to subsidize and build out rental and low-income housing. Important work, but it's not what Canadians aspire to and not what many complain about when it comes to housing affordability - most Canadians still manage to make rent every month. The problem is that they feel stuck in their rental units and ownership options seem out of reach.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Generally, the conventional wisdom is that higher than normal turnout favours the candidate that represents change, which should be the conservatives here.

This would likely be true if Trump never won the last US Election. However, that "change" has already happened thanks to him. Now the onus appears to be on the candidate and party to best deal with that...which will likely also bring "change" regardless. So this would likely favour the Liberals here.

 

[nfitz]

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the advance voting increase by riding. That might tell us if it's happening in Conservative safe seats, Liberal safe seats, or all over.

Though the reports I saw about line-ups were all for very urban ridings - I don't think any were Conservative safe seats.

This could very likely just a trend in how people vote. Look at 2021 - advance polls were were 5.8 million, up from 4.7 million in 2019. But the total number of people who voted dropped from 18.4 million to 17.2 million! Major party support was pretty much unchanged.

 

[guavadelic]

The big problem to me with the Liberal housing platform is that it focuses on continuing to subsidize and build out rental and low-income housing. Important work, but it's not what Canadians aspire to and not what many complain about when it comes to housing affordability - most Canadians still manage to make rent every month. The problem is that they feel stuck in their rental units and ownership options seem out of reach.

Their pledge to reduce development charges by half could make townhomes and multiplex units more attainable for middleclass homebuyers and increase supply, in addition to the reduced building costs of condos and purpose built rentals. It's not as transformative as the Ontario Liberal plan to eliminate development charges for homes under 3000sf however. They'll need to reach agreements with provinces to freeze development charges and/or roll them back to 2018 levels, similar to Vaughn's initiative.

Either way the next government will need to address the demand side of the housing equation, and not only capping immigration. Absent that and Canada will likely still be in the midst of a housing crisis four years from now.

 

[SubHuman]

... This could very likely just a trend in how people vote...

Yes, I think more people are realizing they can do this, and get it done ahead of election day line-ups. And how many people are really still undecided at that point?
I think it must be 20 years or more now since I last waited for the election day (at any level). I remember getting there right as the polls were opening, only to see a long line of senior citizens (and the buses and vans that had brought them parked nearby) already waiting at the entrance.

 

[Bayer]

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the advance voting increase by riding. That might tell us if it's happening in Conservative safe seats, Liberal safe seats, or all over.

Though the reports I saw about line-ups were all for very urban ridings - I don't think any were Conservative safe seats.

This could very likely just a trend in how people vote. Look at 2021 - advance polls were were 5.8 million, up from 4.7 million in 2019. But the total number of people who voted dropped from 18.4 million to 17.2 million! Major party support was pretty much unchanged.

According to Elections Canada, "A breakdown of the estimated number of electors who voted at the advance polls for all electoral districts is being calculated and will soon be available on elections.ca."

 

[Johnny Au]

PP being PP of course:

Source:

https://www.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/1k5jygj/liberal_campaign_advertisement

 

[afransen]

The crime related stuff is going to lead to a massive increase in the prison population in a country which is already severely undersupplied on prison capacity. And no discussions on increasing prison capacity either.

The Conservative policies on housing affordability will likely do far more for middle class Canadians on housing affordability than anything in the Liberal platform - but definitely a lot of weak points elsewhere. The budgeting of it all is also all off with a lot of bad math going on. A lot of the tax cut promises are going to cut a lot more revenue than they are assuming.

PP is also on record that they have no plans to increase prison capacity to support these policies, since we are apparently reserving space for all these repeat offenders who only briefly leave custody.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

RGI housing is wildly expensive. Like, absurdly so. Think $500k in subsidy *per unit*. A $1 billion RGI program would deliver maybe 2,000 units. It's not practical at scale, and ultimately serves only a small proportion of the population as you note.

Er..with the risk of being overly personal here...the government (on any level) is not paying $500k for this unit, not even close, lol...which is a recent RGI conversion. Then again, this unit is not penthouse suite in The Selby in an example...so I can only say this in the anecdote. So while I am not saying RGI isn't expensive to subsidize, but I am pretty sure that figure you stated is way, way too high even in our current market.

 

[innsertnamehere]

PP is also on record that they have no plans to increase prison capacity to support these policies, since we are apparently reserving space for all these repeat offenders who only briefly leave custody.

It all comes back to housing!

 

[innsertnamehere]

Their pledge to reduce development charges by half could make townhomes and multiplex units more attainable for middleclass homebuyers and increase supply, in addition to the reduced building costs of condos and purpose built rentals. It's not as transformative as the Ontario Liberal plan to eliminate development charges for homes under 3000sf however. They'll need to reach agreements with provinces to freeze development charges and/or roll them back to 2018 levels, similar to Vaughn's initiative.

Either way the next government will need to address the demand side of the housing equation, and not only capping immigration. Absent that and Canada will likely still be in the midst of a housing crisis four years from now.

the DC charge reduction pledge, like their GST cut pledge, is too conditional.

Economists have been clear that the largest shortage and component of the market which faces the largest shortages are family-sized homes, which primarily come in the form of townhouses and detached. The Liberal DC charge cut promise is for "multi-unit homes". This will continue to prop up apartments while municipalities are free to continue to charge $150k+ in DCs for any lowrise product.

The GST cut would be a critical component to drive demand for new construction by cutting the cost of new housing by 5% overnight (more if the provinces join the Feds in cutting PST as well). But the liberals put a magical asterisk by restricting it to "new home buyers" only - who are a very, very small portion of the new home market. The new home market is the most expensive form of housing, few people are buying new housing as their first home.

 

[11th]

So the issue is we’re getting an economist as opposed to a lawyer?

Not an issue that we are getting an economist to deal with current Trump originated economy turmoil. I am questioning who has a bigger role in handling the economy, and would he be just as effective if he is BoC governor instead?

 

[guavadelic]

the DC charge reduction pledge, like their GST cut pledge, is too conditional.

Economists have been clear that the largest shortage and component of the market which faces the largest shortages are family-sized homes, which primarily come in the form of townhouses and detached. The Liberal DC charge cut promise is for "multi-unit homes". This will continue to prop up apartments while municipalities are free to continue to charge $150k+ in DCs for any lowrise product.

The GST cut would be a critical component to drive demand for new construction by cutting the cost of new housing by 5% overnight (more if the provinces join the Feds in cutting PST as well). But the liberals put a magical asterisk by restricting it to "new home buyers" only - who are a very, very small portion of the new home market. The new home market is the most expensive form of housing, few people are buying new housing as their first home.

Wouldn't townhomes be considered multi-unit homes and thus eligible for the DC reduction?

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Not an issue that we are getting an economist to deal with current Trump originated economy turmoil. I am questioning who has a bigger role in handling the economy, and would he be just as effective if he is BoC governor instead?

Likely? Can't really say...running a bank is not like running a country. Then again, defending a client in court is not like running a country either in that example...

...I will say though that since the BoC is tied to our economics, Carney will likely have a better grasp of that than most. And for what that's worth.

 

[chrisw]

Ontario raises questions over future of $10-a-day child-care deal | Globalnews.ca

Education Minister Paul Calandra sent a letter to parents on Tuesday raising concerns as the federal election campaign enters its final, frenzied stretch.

globalnews.ca

Ontario government sends letters to parents regarding the expiry of the current childcare deal in March 2026. Either pressuring the CPC to commit to extending the agreement or an endorsement of the LPC. Quite the move.

"In the letter, seen by Global News, Calandra said Ontario had “informed the federal government” it would like to see $10-a-day child care renewed. The current agreement, he wrote, is set to expire at the end of March 2026.

The Liberal platform says it would “protect and strengthen” $10-a-day child care and increase support for public and non-profit centres. The Conservative party’s platform promises to “honour existing deals” with provinces and territories to provide $10-a-day child care."