Holy fuck is she clueless and dangerously so.What's behind Canada's housing crisis? Decades of policy failures, says former deputy PM
Canada’s housing crunch is the result of decades of poor policy stemming from the federal government leaving the issue to the provinces in the 1980s, according to one former deputy prime minister.
Former deputy prime minister Sheila Copps said in an interview with BNN Bloomberg(opens in a new tab) that when Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) was involved in building housing, there was a significant amount of national investment in housing as well as housing policy and strategy.
“The decision that was made back in 1987 to get out of housing at the federal level has resulted in 30 years of underbuilt housing, and also 30 years of not really analyzing good public policy on housing,” Copps said. “I think that's a big issue.”
POLICY SHIFTS
According to Copps, who served as a Liberal deputy prime minister in the 1990s, housing policy in the 1970s saw the national government more directly involved in building housing, including the development of seniors and Indigenous housing.
This changed in the 1980s when provincial governments took over housing policy, Copps said.
While some provincial governments, like Quebec, decided to allocate funding to social housing, Copps said many others have not.
“When the provincial governments took over the money (intended for housing), a lot of them didn't actually spend it on housing,” she said.
From that period on, she said the federal government was not involved in housing until 2017 when the Liberal government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided to “insert itself back into the housing game.” Copps said this move marked the beginning of a collaboration that will take time to address the issues of shortage and affordability currently plaguing Canadian cities.
“Now five years later, we're looking at a problem that has been percolating since we signed off on housing back in 1987,” Copps said.
“Sometimes a national government needs to be at the table to fix problems and leaving it up to 10 provinces and three territories is not always the right way to go.”
ENCOURAGING MIGRATION
In addition to building homes to increase supply, Copps said the federal housing strategy should also entail ways to incentivize migration out of Canada’s most densely populated areas.
“The other thing we need to look at is what the housing prices are in rural and remote communities versus urban areas and how we can encourage people to move around. We learned during the pandemic that everybody doesn't have to live in downtown Toronto,” she said.
“There's lots of opportunities to make people think about migrating elsewhere and getting maybe extra points for a registered homeownership investment plan. These things should be built into the thinking and to have that you really need to have a national government that is not just looking at building housing.”
What's behind Canada's housing crisis? Decades of policy failures, says former deputy PM
Canada's housing crunch is the result of decades of poor policy stemming from the federal government leaving the issue to the provinces in the 1980s, according to one former deputy prime minister.www.ctvnews.ca
Poll: Who gets your vote
- Thread starter K Douglas
- Start date
No it means you don't understand how elections work.
If an election were held today, 44% of committed voters would vote Conservatives with the Liberals at 24%, the NDP at 17% and the Greens at 5%. The BQ is at 29% in Quebec.
https://abacusdata.ca/conservative-open-up-largest-lead-yet/
https://politrend.ca/
It means you don't understand history so will be surprised when you make the same mistake over and over again.
The only mistake that was made over again was re-electing the idiots currently in power. Most Canadians have learned their lesson. I'm not worried...but it sounds like you are.
Because she spoke the facts? Unlike a certain Pee Pee who is whitewashing the Canadians for now!!
Aside from the fact that the Liberals were in power federally for 13 years between 1993-2006, there was plenty of time and opportunity to change the decision made in 1987 if they wanted to. But I digress.What's behind Canada's housing crisis? Decades of policy failures, says former deputy PM
Canada’s housing crunch is the result of decades of poor policy stemming from the federal government leaving the issue to the provinces in the 1980s, according to one former deputy prime minister.
Former deputy prime minister Sheila Copps said in an interview with BNN Bloomberg(opens in a new tab) that when Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) was involved in building housing, there was a significant amount of national investment in housing as well as housing policy and strategy.
“The decision that was made back in 1987 to get out of housing at the federal level has resulted in 30 years of underbuilt housing, and also 30 years of not really analyzing good public policy on housing,” Copps said. “I think that's a big issue.”
POLICY SHIFTS
According to Copps, who served as a Liberal deputy prime minister in the 1990s, housing policy in the 1970s saw the national government more directly involved in building housing, including the development of seniors and Indigenous housing.
This changed in the 1980s when provincial governments took over housing policy, Copps said.
While some provincial governments, like Quebec, decided to allocate funding to social housing, Copps said many others have not.
“When the provincial governments took over the money (intended for housing), a lot of them didn't actually spend it on housing,” she said.
From that period on, she said the federal government was not involved in housing until 2017 when the Liberal government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided to “insert itself back into the housing game.” Copps said this move marked the beginning of a collaboration that will take time to address the issues of shortage and affordability currently plaguing Canadian cities.
“Now five years later, we're looking at a problem that has been percolating since we signed off on housing back in 1987,” Copps said.
“Sometimes a national government needs to be at the table to fix problems and leaving it up to 10 provinces and three territories is not always the right way to go.”
ENCOURAGING MIGRATION
In addition to building homes to increase supply, Copps said the federal housing strategy should also entail ways to incentivize migration out of Canada’s most densely populated areas.
“The other thing we need to look at is what the housing prices are in rural and remote communities versus urban areas and how we can encourage people to move around. We learned during the pandemic that everybody doesn't have to live in downtown Toronto,” she said.
“There's lots of opportunities to make people think about migrating elsewhere and getting maybe extra points for a registered homeownership investment plan. These things should be built into the thinking and to have that you really need to have a national government that is not just looking at building housing.”
What's behind Canada's housing crisis? Decades of policy failures, says former deputy PM
Canada's housing crunch is the result of decades of poor policy stemming from the federal government leaving the issue to the provinces in the 1980s, according to one former deputy prime minister.
However, I would tend to agree with her point:
“The other thing we need to look at is what the housing prices are in rural and remote communities versus urban areas and how we can encourage people to move around. We learned during the pandemic that everybody doesn't have to live in downtown Toronto,” she said.
Too many decisions are made based on the needs of downtown Toronto and not the rest of the province. Not everyone can ride a scooter to work and believe it or not, there are indeed automobiles still using roads. Crazy right?
1/3 of all ridings in Canada are in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.
Its an urban country now, that's where the work is.
For the stuff you do not agree with like the carbon tax you ask for mathematical proof, but for the stuff you agree with even a cursory examination is too much to ask for.
Is asking for mathematical proof somehow wrong?
What "stuff I agree with" are you referring to exactly and what is your point?
Asking for PP's policies is a cursory examination, you are saying you do not need to consider his policies, just vote for him.
That's not what I said but let's go with what you think I said in the spirit of progress...
Consider the policies and then we can have a discussion...
https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/23175001/990863517f7a575.pdf
Yes, because you use it to shut down debate on issues you disagree with.
'prove how every dollar from a carbon tax fixes climate change' type bullshit when you disagree but then you won't do basic math for things you do back.
The only numbers in that document are page numbers and section headings. It is
Affirmations and wishful thinking. There is no meat in there for meaningful discussion.
Asking a question is not shutting down a debate.
Running away from a question and calling people names because you can't or won't answer the question is shutting down a debate.
PeePee says he'll legislate a balanced budget and also cut taxes.
What will have to be cut to make that happen?
It's more than enough to know what they stand for. Not sure how much clearer they can be on the carbon tax for example. Why would you expect detailed policies to be released so far in advance of an election? No party does that not even the NDP or Greens.
Are you giving the Libs a pass for 10 years of reckless inflationary spending and a long list of boondoggles that have created a mess in this country just because you haven't seen finalized policies by other parties?
Good luck with that.
That's what political parties usually do closer to elections. Most of the time, the "specific measures" you are talking about are some kind of promises or goals that are announced as part of the election campaign.
Any party can promise anything. Doesn't mean it will be done or not. So basing your selection on promises is not a complete strategy.
Better to judge the current party's performance and then determine if a change is required. If yes, then you would go with which party aligns with your ideals based on the promises and goals they have announced.
I did not expect detailed policy at this time which is why I said in post #128 about waiting for more details of PP's policy.
You replied to post 128 which lead you to post the CPC book of affirmations, when I pointed out it was fluff you then blame me for expecting detailed policy at this time.
