Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Quirky]

I wonder who to believe:

Canada's new tariffs on U.S. drop to 'nearly zero' with exemptions: Oxford Economics



Most tariffs on U.S. still active, Champagne says in contrast to Oxford Economics report

Tarrifs and pipelines...so what's actually going on?

‘Carney has to pick a lane’: Advocates and opponents worry about mixed signals from Liberals on fossil fuels

Conflicting messages from the heart of the new Liberal government highlight how the precise orientation of the Carney administration is a question.

www.thestar.com

 

[brihard]

It feels like CAF members see and treat the MND like career managers. We get this crazy idea that they're working for us and there to help us out.

Of course not. MND is there to steer the execution of cabinet policy at a departmental level. If that aligns with the welfare of the troops, great, but coincidental.

I wonder who to believe:

Canada's new tariffs on U.S. drop to 'nearly zero' with exemptions: Oxford Economics



Most tariffs on U.S. still active, Champagne says in contrast to Oxford Economics report

I suspect both claims could be supported with different definitions. Champagne may be talking about how many individual tariff rules are in place while Oxford Economics may be talking about the value.

Carney was up front about not wanting tariffs beyond what’s necessary to help curb aggressive U.S. trade policy. Economists almost as a rule despise tariffs. They impede trade and they make economic exchange less efficient. The tariffs were announced reciprocally to what the U.S. has been putting in place. The U.S. stepped back considerably in the case of Canada to confirm CUSMA carve outs, and that allowed us in turn to step back. We were also careful to target tariffs at US trade sectors that have minimal impact on the well being of Canadians and the econony; more focus on substitutable goods we can get elsewhere (albeit slightly less efficiently) or replace with similar but different (eg rye whiskey in lieu of bourbon) and in some cases that target specific political constituencies.

The U.S. came out swinging, we swung back in a pretty precise manner, and as their economic belligerence decreased, so did our retaliation. None of this is inconsistent with Carney’s stated desires or beliefs, and he spoke to this directly at the debate. As U.S. effective tariffs on Canada have receded, so have ours on them.

Ideally, from an economic standpoint, we want the freest trade possible. In normal circumstances Carney would be exactly the sort of person you’d see waving the little stick in front of the orchestra on that particular song.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Of course not. MND is there to steer the execution of cabinet policy at a departmental level. If that aligns with the welfare of the troops, great, but coincidental.

Yeah. PPCLIGuy git the nail on the head, MND for the last couple of decades have been powerless.

They're just figure heads and all say the same thing.

Carney was up front about not wanting tariffs beyond what’s necessary to help curb aggressive U.S. trade policy. Economists almost as a rule despise tariffs.

I found when this kicked off he made a big show about fighting Trump, which Canadians saw him "being better to deal with Trump" than the more reserved Poilievre. Carney was talking dollar for dollar tariffs and staying the course until the end. Elbows up.

Then when he was elected he took Poilievres more reserved approach. Carney did a great job feeding people what they wanted to hear.

 

[brihard]

Yeah. PPCLIGuy git the nail on the head, MND for the last couple of decades have been powerless.

They're just figure heads and all say the same thing.

I found when this kicked off he made a big show about fighting Trump, which Canadians saw him "being better to deal with Trump" than the more reserved Poilievre. Carney was talking dollar for dollar tariffs and staying the course until the end. Elbows up.

Then when he was elected he took Poilievres more reserved approach. Carney did a great job feeding people what they wanted to hear.

He talked dollar for dollar tariffs to start and then readjust as appropriate. Proper economics is always reassessing and adjusting the next rational decision. Trump’s bizarre approach just makes the game theory harder.

 

[MilEME09]

Canada named 2nd most attractive country for foreign direct investment

According to the 2025 Kearney FDI Confidence Index, Canada has been named the second most attractive country for foreign direct investment.

cultmtl.com

Now to actually get the investment, just because we are attractive doesn't mean they will come, we gotta make them come

 

[Eaglelord17]

Meanwhile, in Vancouver during a housing crisis, there are over 3000 condos unsold/ empty...

Metro Vancouver condos sitting empty amid housing crisis | Watch News Videos Online

Watch Metro Vancouver condos sitting empty amid housing crisis Video Online, on GlobalNews.ca

globalnews.ca

Shocker, no one can afford them. 600k+ shoebox condos with expensive condo fees aren’t selling, it really isn’t surprising. The only way people were affording them before was A) investment property hoping that some other sucker would buy it for more than they paid or B) with generational wealth.

Our average incomes cannot effectively support these prices, either wages need to go up or housing costs need to go down. I can tell you which is easier to do.

I make a bit over 100k a year which is about 40k above the average, take home after all taxes is about 60k. Over my working career assuming I retire at 65 and rates stay the same I will have made a bit over 2 million dollars clear.

If a home is 600k and I have to take a mortgage out that doubles the cost. Now that home is 1.2m. Now add in condo fees, special assessments, maintenance, and property taxes and basically all my income earned over my working career just went into paying for this condo. Sounds like a great investment right?

Housing went from a necessity to a speculative commodity. We are now just watching the fall out of that in slow time as the government is doing everything in it’s power to kick the can down the road.

It will pop one day, and when it does the fall out is going to get worse and worse as time progresses.

 

[brihard]

Shocker, no one can afford them. 600k+ shoebox condos with expensive condo fees aren’t selling, it really isn’t surprising. The only way people were affording them before was A) investment property hoping that some other sucker would buy it for more than they paid or B) with generational wealth.

Our average incomes cannot effectively support these prices, either wages need to go up or housing costs need to go down. I can tell you which is easier to do.

I make a bit over 100k a year which is about 40k above the average, take home after all taxes is about 60k. Over my working career assuming I retire at 65 and rates stay the same I will have made a bit over 2 million dollars clear.

If a home is 600k and I have to take a mortgage out that doubles the cost. Now that home is 1.2m. Now add in condo fees, special assessments, maintenance, and property taxes and basically all my income earned over my working career just went into paying for this condo. Sounds like a great investment right?

Housing went from a necessity to a speculative commodity. We are now just watching the fall out of that in slow time as the government is doing everything in it’s power to kick the can down the road.

It will pop one day, and when it does the fall out is going to get worse and worse as time progresses.

Toronto’s undergoing a major market crash in shoebox condos right now. Pre-construction units that were bought speculatively, took years to build (or are still building), and in that time the AirBNB regulations clamped down hard and interest rates climbed somewhat. Now the intended purchasers can’t close their mortgages and are underwater, unable to take possession.

 

[Jarnhamar]

He talked dollar for dollar tariffs to start and then readjust as appropriate. Proper economics is always reassessing and adjusting the next rational decision. Trump’s bizarre approach just makes the game theory harder.

He's definitely outsmarted Poilievre at every step.

 

[brihard]

He's definitely outsmarted Poilievre at every step.

He sure did that.

 

[mariomike]

Toronto’s undergoing a major market crash in shoebox condos right now.

If that is the case, do readers have any complaints if some folks buy small "Pied-à-terre" condominiums downtown, not to be used as a primary residence, but for convenience during the work week, and occasional overnight / weekend visits in the city?

 

[brihard]

If that is the case, do readers have any complaints if some folks buy small "Pied-à-terre" condominiums downtown, not to be used as a primary residence, but for convenience during the work week, and occasional overnight / weekend visits in the city?

No, why would we complain about that? If someone has the means and the want to buy one, go nuts. It’s crashing in large part because those units at that price in that place are not what many people want. There’s a limited supply of rookie Bay Street lawyers who need a place to briefly crash for the 30 hours a week they aren’t at work.

 

[mariomike]

No, why would we complain about that? If someone has the means and the want to buy one, go nuts.

Asked myself the same question.

So they’re taking additional homes off the market for their convenience, tendering those unavailable for people looking for a primary residence?

 

[brihard]

Asked myself the same question.

Right but look at how it fits into the whole. A few years back now, there was a demand bubble for these little shoeboxes because people thought they’d get rich leveraging the shit out of themselves to have a portfolio of AirBNBs. Developers hopped on it and committed their capital and resources to building towers full of the things. They did that instead actually building livable starter home condos. Now that demand has dried up, and all these people with enforceable pre-con purchase contracts have crashed against the brick wall of failing to obtain financing and close purchases. Prices are plummeting, projects are going bankrupt, and we have years of wasted production. Towers could have gone up with 60% of the number of units for sale or rent, but all of them suitable for a single or a young couple to actually comfortably live in and start building equity.

Will there be some people content to buy and live in some of these? Of course there will be some demand at low enough price points. Sell tulips cheap enough, someone’ll buy ‘em. But a lot of construction has been effectively wasted inasmuch as it has not supplied the housing market that’s actually still demanded.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No, why would we complain about that? If someone has the means and the want to buy one, go nuts. It’s crashing in large part because those units at that price in that place are not what many people want. There’s a limited supply of rookie Bay Street lawyers who need a place to briefly crash for the 30 hours a week they aren’t at work.

Consumer confidence is low, and the cost of living is increasing, so no surprise that the housing market is in trouble...

The threat of U.S. tariffs looms over Canada’s housing market​

According to RBC Economics, “the significant risk that tariffs pose to Canada’s economy casts a potentially dark shadow over the housing market.” With consumer confidence playing a pivotal role, potential economic turbulence could unsettle both buyers and sellers.

Robert Hogue, assistant chief economist at RBC, likened the housing outlook to “putting a price on a home before an earthquake—it’s hard to know what shape the structure will be in at the end of the day.” While the U.S. administration paused the implementation of blanket tariffs earlier this month, Hogue suggests the introduction of targeted measures, such as a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum imports means that trade tensions aren’t going away anytime soon.

The threat of U.S. tariffs looms over Canada’s housing market

RBC Economist Robert Hogue likens the 2025 housing outlook to “putting a price on a home before an earthquake..."

realestatemagazine.ca

 

[The Bread Guy]

... I suspect both claims could be supported with different definitions. Champagne may be talking about how many individual tariff rules are in place while Oxford Economics may be talking about the value ...

Sounds like Oxford Economics may be saying "Canada's collecting pretty much zero tariffs," while Champagne is saying, "hey, the tariffs are still in place, even if exemptions are dialed in."

Sorta like the gas tax: some say "hey, it's gone", while others say "but the tap's still there to turn it back on." While both technically treu, who you believe more depends on who you trust more. And which factoid makes a better meme for your side