Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Czech_pivo]

I understand that the problem is complex, my point is simply that even $1.3m is completely outside the realm of possibility for most young people looking to get into the market.

Prices have gone crazy compared to wages, and things are now essentially just current landowners buying other properties. Eventually there won't be enough landowners to prop-up the current prices.

I agree.

The value of the land is the main culprit, at least in the GTA. Twenty-odd years ago when McGinty created the Greenbelt around the GTA he in essence created a 'fixed amount' of new land available for development. It instantly created a 'upper end' of the land available to build on and drove prices correspondingly higher. At the time I was living north of Georgetown outside of a village called Ballinafad, which fell inside the Greenbelt . Alot of farmers were pissed off because they had 'lost' their retirement package because their land would always remain farmland, whereas, for an example, a friend of theirs living 3km south and 2km east would have just won the lottery, because at that time a 100acre corn/soya bean farm was getting a cool 100m! The price today per acre for the few remaining farms in Halton Hills within the Greenbelt that have not yet sold off are now going for well over 1.5-2m/acre.

When you look at the GTA or better yet GTHA (Greater Toronto Hamilton Area), you need to compare this to our version of NYC or London (UK) or Paris or Tokyo. Traditional home ownership (based on our existing definition of a house/land) is beyond the reach of everyday people in virtually all of those cities. Its the same situation in Montreal and Vancouver as well. Land is at a high premium due to government restrictions (such as the Greenbelt for Toronto) and geographic restrictions (such as water/ocean/mountains for Montreal/Vancouver). But, people want to live here (for the most part) because that is where the economic opportunities are.

If the Feds and the Provincial government went to a place like depressed place like Chatham Ontario and bought up 3-4 farms (call it 500acres in total), on the outskirts of town, at current prices for land zoned as farmland, nothing else - valued at 23,0004/acre - for a total of say 12$m - and then sold that land directly to individuals at say a price of 20,000$ a lot (size of 60ft X 120ft - which would be an 'executive' lot in the GTA) to have a home built on it for say 150$/sqft for a 2000sqft house, so all in for 320,000$ a house/lot - do you know they would be able to sell off all of the lots?

And if they did, how many of those people would live in the new house for say 1-2yrs and then try and sell it for 400k, or 500k or 650k? Which in turn would do nothing but encourage others in those same houses to do the same, so that in 3yrs time all of the homes in that newly developed area are selling at between 5-600k?

 

[PrairieFella]

I've been wondering in the past while if a land-value tax to replace property tax can help temper the insane speculation. Have exemptions for primary residences and go from there. Could have the opposite effect though and limit starts. Such a complex problem.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I am all for a devaluing of property. I fully support it.

Give me the heads before it occurs so that I can sell my house and rent for 3-6months before this happens and then buy back into my neighbourhood at these newly devalued prices.

On another note, will you devalue the outstanding mortgage on said properties in the same proportion as the devaluing of the house?

 

[Quirky]

On another note, will you devalue the outstanding mortgage on said properties in the same proportion as the devaluing of the house?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Housing prices can't just rise to infinity and beyond, at some point people will lose their hats that's the risk you take when buying property. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see housing prices skyrocket considering I'm personally sitting on a 7-figure property through inherence, and I currently live in a very low COL area. This country's GDP essentially runs on inflated housing values, it's not going to last.

 

[Czech_pivo]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Housing prices can't just rise to infinity and beyond, at some point people will lose their hats that's the risk you take when buying property. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see housing prices skyrocket considering I'm personally sitting on a 7-figure property through inherence, and I currently live in a very low COL area. This country's GDP essentially runs on inflated housing values, it's not going to last.

I'm not expecting them to rise to infinity, what I don't want to see is some sort of gov't implemented 'devaluing' of properties. The gov't should NOT be penalizing existing homeowners by ramming down their throat some sort of de-valuation plan. If this occurs I for one will look to emigrate to any place in the world for my retirement and take my money with me.

What government can do as one piece of the puzzle in addressing the current situation is to stop allowing municipalities from allowing speculators to buy an existing house, tear it down and build something 50-150% bigger and then double/triple the price on the new house. Stop talking a 1-1.5m house in the GTA and building a new one and selling it for 3-3.5-4m and driving up ALL the other houses in the neighbourhood in return.

 

[IKnowNothing]

On another note, will you devalue the outstanding mortgage on said properties in the same proportion as the devaluing of the house?

In broadstrokes, using Benchmark price on the provincial aggregate (there's definite regional variation we're currently sitting at 77% percent of peak (April 2022) roughly in line with March of 2021, on a slight but slowing down trend.

In my area, it's currently 88% of peak, largely stabilized, with a bottom of 82% that happened back in January of 2023.

Every year that we stay in this rough equilibrium range it get's stickier and stickier as an anchor, as more and more of the market actually transacts at these price levels, and more and more of the population has a financial stake* in maintaining them.

The fact the market didn't fall further in the face of massive interest hikes with an unprecedented number of people holding variable rate mortgages is telling. Barring a major catalyst with major (negative) societal connotations the only way out of this is relieving pressure on the bottom end of the value scale to get people housed, with maybe a further slight fall in the aggregate market followed by a long period of no/minimal appreciation while wages catch up.

One thing I didn't realize- Ontario's homebuilding targets were based on the absolutely aspirational goal of returning to 2003 levels of affordability. There's definitely sucking and blowing going on wrt to those targets- as there is zero chance that any political party will want to deal with the ramifications of the asset deflation required to make that happen.

Edit* bad wording on my part. Paper net worth and future realization is a stake no doubt- but a very different one both psychologically and financially than having either spent the cash or having a liability against it.

 

[Quirky]

The gov't should NOT be penalizing existing homeowners by ramming down their throat some sort of de-valuation plan.

The gov is ramming all kinds of crap down our throats, such as electric vehicles and other green garbage we don't want, what's to say housing corrections aren't next.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree.

The value of the land is the main culprit, at least in the GTA. Twenty-odd years ago when McGinty created the Greenbelt around the GTA he in essence created a 'fixed amount' of new land available for development. It instantly created a 'upper end' of the land available to build on and drove prices correspondingly higher. At the time I was living north of Georgetown outside of a village called Ballinafad, which fell inside the Greenbelt . Alot of farmers were pissed off because they had 'lost' their retirement package because their land would always remain farmland, whereas, for an example, a friend of theirs living 3km south and 2km east would have just won the lottery, because at that time a 100acre corn/soya bean farm was getting a cool 100m! The price today per acre for the few remaining farms in Halton Hills within the Greenbelt that have not yet sold off are now going for well over 1.5-2m/acre.

When you look at the GTA or better yet GTHA (Greater Toronto Hamilton Area), you need to compare this to our version of NYC or London (UK) or Paris or Tokyo. Traditional home ownership (based on our existing definition of a house/land) is beyond the reach of everyday people in virtually all of those cities. Its the same situation in Montreal and Vancouver as well. Land is at a high premium due to government restrictions (such as the Greenbelt for Toronto) and geographic restrictions (such as water/ocean/mountains for Montreal/Vancouver). But, people want to live here (for the most part) because that is where the economic opportunities are.

If the Feds and the Provincial government went to a place like depressed place like Chatham Ontario and bought up 3-4 farms (call it 500acres in total), on the outskirts of town, at current prices for land zoned as farmland, nothing else - valued at 23,0004/acre - for a total of say 12$m - and then sold that land directly to individuals at say a price of 20,000$ a lot (size of 60ft X 120ft - which would be an 'executive' lot in the GTA) to have a home built on it for say 150$/sqft for a 2000sqft house, so all in for 320,000$ a house/lot - do you know they would be able to sell off all of the lots?

And if they did, how many of those people would live in the new house for say 1-2yrs and then try and sell it for 400k, or 500k or 650k? Which in turn would do nothing but encourage others in those same houses to do the same, so that in 3yrs time all of the homes in that newly developed area are selling at between 5-600k?

WRT the highlighted bit.

The people that built these Mayfair terraces



Also built these places



The moves between the two residences defined the beginning and end of "The Season".

We are returning to that. Those that can live where they will and maintain a "pied a terre" in "The City".

The rest, below stairs, are increasingly relegated to





....


I love history.

Will it go round in circles?

....

The last picture is wrong. There are too many children in it to reflect modern times.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The gov is ramming all kinds of crap down our throats, such as electric vehicles and other green garbage we don't want, what's to say housing corrections aren't next.

The EV timelines will be gone. I've posted on other threads about this in the post. With both Toyota and Honda BOTH saying that they have zero intention with making the 2035 deadline AND the Big 3 coming out against it - especially if Trump continues to push them to build brand new plants in America to produce cars. It may still come in the future and that's fine, constant change can be a good thing, but as for it happening in the next 9 model years - nope, not going to happen.

 

[Czech_pivo]

WRT the highlighted bit.

The people that built these Mayfair terraces

View attachment 94300

Also built these places

View attachment 94301

The moves between the two residences defined the beginning and end of "The Season".

We are returning to that. Those that can live where they will and maintain a "pied a terre" in "The City".

The rest, below stairs, are increasingly relegated to


View attachment 94302


....


I love history.

Will it go round in circles?

....

The last picture is wrong. There are too many children in it to reflect modern times.

Interesting choice of pics, lol.

What is not being talked about here is AI and what it may or may not do 7yrs out, 15yrs out, 25yrs out. It has the chance of being the 'bet on the long shot horse' in the race in terms of upending the current state.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting choice of pics, lol.

What is not being talked about here is AI and what it may or may not do 7yrs out, 15yrs out, 25yrs out. It has the chance of being the 'bet on the long shot horse' in the race in terms of upending the current state.

In which case you only need the "Pied a terre" for when you go to the Oilers' game or the annual board meeting. Everything else can be done from "Blenheim".

There may be opportunities in Private Security - fighting tails and fancy livery may come back in fashion.



---- Just realised that the British preference for the soft hat has been around for a long while.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

The gov is ramming all kinds of crap down our throats, such as electric vehicles and other green garbage we I don't want, what's to say housing corrections aren't next.

Who is this we? Do you speak for all Canadians (obviously not Albertans, Conservatives, or young voters as seen below)? Or were you using the Royal We?

Poll: Two-thirds of Canadians favour developing clean energy over fossil fuels, while 85% wish to maintain or increase federal climate action

As Canadians face another summer of wildfires, support for continued climate action remains extremely strong, with only 14% of Canadians saying the federal government should do less to combat climate change and transition the country to clean energy.

A large plurality of respondents believe the federal government should do even more on climate (44%), while a similar number say the government is doing about the right amount (41%). Support for at least maintaining if not increasing climate action is universal across regions (72% in Alberta) and parties (70% among Conservatives).

And perhaps bucking the trending narrative that Gen Z is turning Trumpian, 60% of those aged 18 to 29 say the federal government should do even more to combat climate change and transition to clean energy, with only 7% of this age group saying the government should do less.

Respondents were also asked whether Canada should be more aligned with Europe or the U.S. on matters of climate change and clean energy, with a strong majority (76%) saying they prefer alignment with Europe. Interestingly, when the question is framed this way, it is those aged 60-plus who profess the highest levels of support for a more climate-ambitious path forward (82%).

This is obviously a biased site, and they commissioned Abacus to conduct the poll, but it is a data point to consider.

 

[Kirkhill]

Who is this we? Do you speak for all Canadians (obviously not Albertans, Conservatives, or young voters as seen below)? Or were you using the Royal We?

Poll: Two-thirds of Canadians favour developing clean energy over fossil fuels, while 85% wish to maintain or increase federal climate action


This is obviously a biased site, and they commissioned Abacus to conduct the poll, but it is a data point to consider.

5% will create turbulence. 10% will create an insurrection.

25-75% are politically indistinguishable. They have to be accommodated.

The same applies to supporters of fossil fuels.

 

[MilEME09]

C-6, and C-7 just got Royal assent this morning, now we have budgetary authority, column 3, 4 and 5 are Amount in Main Estimates, Amount Appropriated by Special Warrants, Amount Appropriated by this Act




and Bill C-7

 

[HavokFour]

Some fresh numbers to look at from Mainstreet.

Canada National Survey, June 2025

A survey of Canadian voters following this year's federal election.

www.mainstreetresearch.ca

One thing stood out the most, to me.

Keep Poilievre as leader?: 39 yes, 44 no, 17 don't know

Looking a bit dicey for Poilievre especially if he does worse than the MP that stepped down for him to run his riding. Someone correct me if I am wrong but that gentleman won something like ~80% of the vote there.

 

[PrairieFella]

C-6, and C-7 just got Royal assent this morning, now we have budgetary authority, column 3, 4 and 5 are Amount in Main Estimates, Amount Appropriated by Special Warrants, Amount Appropriated by this Act

View attachment 94305
View attachment 94306

and Bill C-7

View attachment 94307

Payraise when. My ass is about to start workup. Will make that crap way sweeter.

 

[YZT580]

Who is this we? Do you speak for all Canadians (obviously not Albertans, Conservatives, or young voters as seen below)? Or were you using the Royal We?

Poll: Two-thirds of Canadians favour developing clean energy over fossil fuels, while 85% wish to maintain or increase federal climate action


This is obviously a biased site, and they commissioned Abacus to conduct the poll, but it is a data point to consider.

one item: it is 60% of people 18 to 29 and not of all Canadians. And I would expect no less. These are the young adults who were brought up with Greta and heard that "the sky is falling" for their entire lives. they have never been taught the principles of scientific research but are conditioned to accept "evidence" without discussion simply because the internet says so.

 

[PrairieFella]

one item: it is 60% of people 18 to 29 and not of all Canadians. And I would expect no less. These are the young adults who were brought up with Greta and heard that "the sky is falling" for their entire lives.

We do tend to care more about the environment than older generations, we're watching in real time the effects the degradation of ecosystems are having. Also, we're here for another 70ish years. We want to keep it enjoyable for our kids and grandkids. Something that a lot of us wish had been done for us. Its starting small now, some desertification here, a poisoned lake there, a smattering of global reef death, etc.

they have never been taught the principles of scientific research but are conditioned to accept "evidence" without discussion simply because the internet says so.

I don't think that's the gotcha against the youths you think it is haha. The scientific method requires the examination of evidence to come to a conclusion. We have examined and come to our conclusion.

 

[Remius]

Some fresh numbers to look at from Mainstreet.

Canada National Survey, June 2025

A survey of Canadian voters following this year's federal election.

www.mainstreetresearch.ca

One thing stood out the most, to me.



Looking a bit dicey for Poilievre especially if he does worse than the MP that stepped down for him to run his riding. Someone correct me if I am wrong but that gentleman won something like ~80% of the vote there.

He is looking like yesterday’s man yes.

However, I would hesitate to use a by election as a true measure of support in a riding.

Meanwhile it seems he is still going to work hard to get the seat despite it being a likely done deal regardless.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I don’t think you’d find a single homeowner or mortgage holder who would want the value of their house to fall in value. None.

I am more than willing to have the value of my home to fall if it means it is more affordable for all. A house isn’t a investment it is a necessity. Plus the lower the property value the less property taxes paid, the less interest paid to the banks in mortgages and the better almost everyone is. The only people truly hurt by falling housing prices are those who bought at the peak, which is a very small number of home owners which the longer we wait grows each day.

You don’t grow an economy by having prices fall - it’s called deflation and it’s worse than inflation.

The greatest economic boom in history happened when prices fell to record lows due to industrialization (during the industrial revolution). Prices falling isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is actually a hallmark of successful capitalism. Our current ‘capitalists’ at the top want to avoid it mainly because it hurts their margins and equalizes the playing field. It also might shake up who is sitting at the top.