[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

The Conservatives are taking another page from US politics, straight out of MAGA playbook:

We still don't know what it was all about.  Was she right?  Was she wrong?  What is it she said that inflamed passions on the Conservative's side?

Well, well, well.  What do you know.  Freedom of speech for Canadian Conservatives is just like in the US.

Due to political pressure, CTV has cancelled their fact checking segment.
CTV Cancelled a Fact-Checking Segment in Response to Political Pressure From Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives

Snowflakes can't stand critic and fact checking.

Edit:
The recorded phone call between the journalist and CTV about the pressure from the Conservatives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdPiBNiedQg&t=1s

[Bauer]

So the conservatives have a carrot and stick plan to force municipalities to build more,  and liberals have a top down agency plan to develop low cost housing and find efficiencies somehow.

I recall a radio interview with a local developer describing how the long approval process stifles their business.  Homebuilders should be prefabricating and hiring tradespeople well in advance to build efficiently.  They want and know how to do this, but when approvals take years it prevents it and then takes time to start the process.  That adds cost and gets passed on to the consumer.

Based on that i feel the conservative approach to try to eliminate the red tape is the way to go.

But really ideas like this need to be fleshed out more in both cases.

[Zoupa]

The Conservatives are taking another page from US politics, straight out of MAGA playbook:

We still don't know what it was all about.  Was she right?  Was she wrong?  What is it she said that inflamed passions on the Conservative's side?

Well, well, well.  What do you know.  Freedom of speech for Canadian Conservatives is just like in the US.

Due to political pressure, CTV has cancelled their fact checking segment.
CTV Cancelled a Fact-Checking Segment in Response to Political Pressure From Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives

Snowflakes can't stand critic and fact checking.

Edit:
The recorded phone call between the journalist and CTV about the pressure from the Conservatives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdPiBNiedQg&t=1s

Waiting on the Razes and Dgullers of this world to write long winded essays about how the left is instilling a climate of fear about people being cancelled.

[crazy canuck]

So the conservatives have a carrot and stick plan to force municipalities to build more,  and liberals have a top down agency plan to develop low cost housing and find efficiencies somehow.

I recall a radio interview with a local developer describing how the long approval process stifles their business.  Homebuilders should be prefabricating and hiring tradespeople well in advance to build efficiently.  They want and know how to do this, but when approvals take years it prevents it and then takes time to start the process.  That adds cost and gets passed on to the consumer.

Based on that i feel the conservative approach to try to eliminate the red tape is the way to go.

But really ideas like this need to be fleshed out more in both cases.

And since property development is a provincial jurisdiction it'll be a neat trick for the conservatives to explain how they are going to intrude on provincial jurisdiction to deal with municipalities directly.

[grumbler]

I don't think that's remotely helpful.

The west would have talks with the USSR during the Cold War for pete's sake, even as the Soviets said "we will bury you" and the US called the USSR an "evil empire".

Actually, the "We will bury you" speech was in 1956, and all of the Western diplomats walked out in protest. That's hardly "talks." The Reagan speech chilled relations between the US and USSR, but the chill eased when Reagan announced a couple of years later that he no longer believed his words to be true.

In any case, none of the Cold War belligerent speech went as far as Trunp's stated objective of making Canada "the 51st state."

I don't think you pretend that Canada and the US are very friendly right now, but you have to talk with Trump.

Talk, yes.  Negotiate, no.  Negotiations can wait until Trump focuses on the next shiny thing.

[viper37]

So the conservatives have a carrot and stick plan to force municipalities to build more,  and liberals have a top down agency plan to develop low cost housing and find efficiencies somehow.

I recall a radio interview with a local developer describing how the long approval process stifles their business.  Homebuilders should be prefabricating and hiring tradespeople well in advance to build efficiently.  They want and know how to do this, but when approvals take years it prevents it and then takes time to start the process.  That adds cost and gets passed on to the consumer.

Based on that i feel the conservative approach to try to eliminate the red tape is the way to go.

But really ideas like this need to be fleshed out more in both cases.

The Conservative approach has been tried for years by various provincial governments.

It works.  And it doesn't.

To build luxury condos, it works.  The promotor finds the right spot well in advance and the hurdles at the municiple level will disappear as they see how much taxes they can gain.

The matter of who's paying what and how is simple to solve.  either the city pays for the new street and services by increasing everyone's taxes, or they charge a special one-of tax to the promoter, per door.

When it doesn't work is for special case.
You want to change zoning laws and you are a small promoter.  you want to build higher than the city permits.  tsk, tsk.  that's a nightmare.

You want to build a mini house on your lot for your adult children.  another big no.  the same guys who talk about removing red tape are going to bury you under municipal red tape if you try this in their 'hood.

Trying to remodel a patrimonial house in a more modern design.  headaches.  lots of headaches.  Feds can't touch this, not unless they want to experience a true Canadian Revolution that would make the American one look like a love fest.

Last but not least, the subsidized homes for low imcome families.

Funds come from the Feds who give it to the provinces.  office municipal d'habitation requests budget to build new units to the cities, cities ask money to the provinces, provinces ask their money to Feds.

[crazy canuck]

Viper,

Building additional housing on one property has been allowed in BC for a number of years now.  First there was "laneway housing" - housing built in the backyard with access to a back lane.


And now most recently we have the ability to build multi family units on the same property without the need to apply for a zoning exemption (from single family to multi family).

But of course that is because of Provincial legislation. None of that is within Federal jurisdiction.

[viper37]

Viper,

Building additional housing on one property has been allowed in BC for a number of years now.  First there was "laneway housing" - housing built in the backyard with access to a back lane.


And now most recently we have the ability to build multi family units on the same property without the need to apply for a zoning exemption (from single family to multi family).

But of course that is because of Provincial legislation. None of that is within Federal jurisdiction.

I have read it has been problematic in some cities in Quebec and Ontario, with owners being fined, forced to dismantle even after receiving their construction permit for tiny houses.

Zoning bylaws vary from cities to cities (or MRC in Quebec, for rural areas).  For example, even if my own lot was originally 3 distinct lots, made to accomodate 3 seperate houses (my dad didn't want any neighbours, he bought the first two, than the 3rd one with all the construction materials when he realized there was going to be house next to us ), I am now forbidden to build another complete house behind mine.  I am also forbidden to have a permanent (more than 2 weeks) camping car or any kind of caravan on any land that I own in the city without a permit, and this permit only allows me to park the caravan, not to plug it to any kind of septic installation.  The city does not want any camping in its area, with or without provincial license.

If I wanted a new house on my lot, I would have to divide and sell it.  But I can't own it and have another house, no matter how small it is.  No house, no caravan.

The irony is, laneway housing has been authorized in the past in my town...  There are such housing in the same street as mine.

[viper37]

Alberta's victimization complex once again

UCP rep praised by Danielle Smith compares Canada's treatment of Alberta to the Holocaust—gets called out on the spot (by one person while the others remain silent).

Reminds me of something, again...

[crazy canuck]

Alberta's victim's complex once again

UCP rep praised by Danielle Smith compares Canada's treatment of Alberta to the Holocaust—gets called out on the spot (by one person while the others remain silent).

Reminds me of something, again...

Is worse than you describe. When the one person called him out, you can hear others telling her to shut up, sit down, get out etc. 

[Bauer]

What does Danielle Smith want anyways?  What are her proposals/solutions or does she just not have any?

[viper37]

What does Danielle Smith want anyways?  What are her proposals/solutions or does she just not have any?

Right now, she's whining that Quebec does not let Ottawa build pipelines, that we're too socialist, that she wants to work with Quebec for provincial autonomy, that she wants Ottawa to stop equalization payments or else... she wants Ottawa to build a pipeline (or pipelines) with public (i.e. federal ) money, she wants more federal investments in oil&gas industry in Alberta, a stop to Federal investments in green projects, a referendum on independence to pressure Ottawa on investing more in her province... So that Alberta would absolutely not bring back a sales tax to finance its own services.

Somehow, trickle down economics has failed to bring increased government revenues and it's the fault of everyone else, but especially Quebec.

By some magic, we are blocking pipelines from Alberta in all directions now.  They can't export to BC nor the US because of us, they can't deliver to Ontario neither.

[crazy canuck]

An analysis of the impact on Canada

While U.S. President Donald Trump took a sledgehammer to the global trading system on Wednesday, he offered a reprieve to Canada and Mexico, potentially putting his neighbours at a competitive advantage if they stay within the bounds of the continental trade agreement.

In his most sweeping protectionist measures yet, Mr. Trump placed a 10-per-cent baseline tariff on imports into the U.S., with considerably higher tariffs on dozens of trading partners including the European Union, China and Japan.

Canada and Mexico, however, will not face the baseline tariff or a higher country-specific duty. Both remain subject to the across-the-board tariffs imposed in early March, ostensibly to force Ottawa and Mexico City to address border security problems. However, goods that comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will remain exempt.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


That means a significant portion of Canadian and Mexican goods will continue to trade tariff-free, while other countries face a steep jump in duties. In effect, Mr. Trump is forcing more North American trade to happen under the auspices of the USMCA, while making it prohibitively expensive for companies to export non-compliant goods to the U.S.



VIDEO 4:15
 
Globe economics reporter Mark Rendell says Wednesday's tariff announcement by President Donald Trump saw Canada not hit as hard as predicted, but that the trade war has now gone global.

CIBC chief economist Avery Shenfeld said in an e-mail that Canada appears to have gotten off lighter than expected, but that remaining tariffs on aluminum and steel as well as vehicles and auto parts are still "very problematic."

According to economists at Toronto-Dominion Bank, the effective tariff rate Canada now faces from the U.S. is roughly 10 per cent, up from less than 2 per cent before Mr. Trump took office. CIBC economists, meanwhile, estimate the average effective tariff rate could be 5 per cent if all goods become compliant with the USMCA.

Nevertheless, Canadian business groups on Wednesday were tepidly optimistic that Mr. Trump's decision to leave out Canada and Mexico from reciprocal tariffs means any trade-related disputes can be punted off to the renegotiation of the USMCA. The agreement is up for a review in July, 2026, though politicians may push for negotiations sooner.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


"We hope that today's positioning regarding Canada by the U.S. is part of a path to real negotiation, ultimately leading to long-term partnership focused on continental economic security and resilience," said Chamber of Commerce president Candace Laing in a statement.

There's also some hope that border-related tariffs imposed on Canada and Mexico may be lifted. The executive order issued on Wednesday notes that if those levies are removed, a 12-per-cent tariff would apply to goods that are not compliant of the USMCA – less than half of existing the 25-per-cent rate.

"It suggests to me that there is a path forward here. It's not straight line. It'll require a lot of effort. But all in all, I would say it wasn't a bad day for Canada," Canadian Business Council president Goldy Hyder told The Globe and Mail.

Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Wednesday that Mr. Trump's new global tariffs "are going to fundamentally change the international trading system" but that the U.S. President "has preserved a number of important elements of our trading relationship."

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


How that change in the international trading system will affect Canada is still unclear, as economists see both opportunity and risk.

Mr. Shenfeld said that the higher-than-expected global tariffs "could push up inflation and hit confidence south of the border, which can also dent Canada's export volumes. So, there's still work for Canada's incoming government to try to get to the negotiating table and see if we can reach a mutually beneficial deal with the U.S."

At the same time, some Canadian exporters may benefit relative to their competitors in other countries now facing steep tariffs.

"Should producers in both countries move to make more of their goods USMCA-compliant and the governments work towards resolutions for border frictions, there is scope for Canada and Mexico to take market share from other U.S. trading partners," said Royce Mendes, head of macro strategy at Desjardins, in a client note.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT


Canada and Mexico will still get hit by sector-specific tariffs on steel and aluminum alongside automobiles, although cars that trade under the USMCA won't pay levies on the value of the vehicle made up of U.S. auto parts.

According to U.S. data, 38 per cent of Canadian exports to the U.S. in 2024 were stamped USMCA-compliant. That means the products met the rules-of-origin outlined in the trade agreement, which specifies what proportion of a good must be sourced in North America.

Trade experts believe that the actual proportion of Canadian exports that could comply with USMCA rules is significantly higher than 38 per cent. In the past, companies have frequently chosen not to certify their goods because they already traded tariff-free or at very low rates under "most favoured nation" rates that apply to all trading partners. The additional compliance costs were not, before now, always worth it.

By giving Canada and Mexico a break, Mr. Trump has shown the value of the USMCA. But he has also increased his leverage ahead of the negotiations of the free-trade pact.

Mr. Trump and his lieutenants have said there are numerous things they would like to change about the agreement, including gaining more access to Canada's supply-managed agricultural sectors and increasing U.S. content requirement for North American automobiles.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/519974dc5e28f762a87fb14c1570523f4fb873adfcfcb945043907ccc3c41650/NTKXIXNRRNEAJOGD4QNL4LERPM/

[crazy canuck]

Canada388 now says there is an 85% chance of a Liberal majority

It's now up to a 91% chance

[Neil]

Well, I voted.