[jje1000]

Gotta say, if that was the best the LPC have, they are toast. This budget isn't moving much in any timeframe that will matter to anyone worried about a specific issue. Be that housing, productivity, taxes, etc

The big noise coming out of this seems to be taxes (2/3rds capital tax is the new sound-byte), spending, and deficits.

 

[evandyk]

The capital gains change does make a material difference to a small number of pretty rich people, so it’s no surprise it’s getting media attention.

It will probably have some impact on estate planning, but that’s only planning, not actually paying the tax.

 

[kEiThZ]

But any government actuary would have forecasted this exposure. We can’t act like we’re surprised now. The Feds should have been either increasing the allocated funds and/or decreasing the benefits before now. It’s government incompetence and procrastination that got us here, not Canada’s seniors.

Well yes. It's a known problem. And the Boomers kept voting in governments who kicked the can down the road and are now hoping austerity gets delayed till after they are gone. But every dollar borrowed to pay OAS today is going to cost a Millennial $2-3 down the road.

I don't know the Radiocommunication Act that well, but regulatory changes are typically a Cabinet decision. They could have done that after lunch on any scheduled Cabinet day,

They are trying to look like they are doing something. This is why they recently banned Flipper Zero (a hobbyist tool). I bought one to play with just before the ban. I knew they were going for signalling over substance.

The big noise coming out of this seems to be taxes (2/3rds capital tax is the new sound-byte), spending, and deficits.

They are trying to trap the Conservatives by hoping to make the CPC look like they are all about the rich and corporations. Personally, I don't think the average voter really cares anymore. The Liberals have to deliver results and they aren't. Home prices are already starting to rise again.

 

[Northern Light]

Gotta say, if that was the best the LPC have, they are toast. This budget isn't moving much in any timeframe that will matter to anyone worried about a specific issue. Be that housing, productivity, taxes, etc

To this point.

What we've talked about before, that need to reduce the cost of housing and to increases its availability is immediate.

The only way to tackle that at all in 12 months or less is reducing the number of people living in Canada.

The only way to do that is to cut foreign students, and TFWs and reduce tourists as well by severely restricting short-term rentals.

The only one they've move in any real way is students, they could have been more aggressive, but the move is there; but on TFWs there's been virtually no action; and none to speak of on short-term rentals.

Now, strictly speaking, the above are not budgetary measures; but the budget being a political document that invariably includes non-budget items ought to have said something if either action were in the near-term offing.

 

[Richard White]

The only way to do that is to cut foreign students, and TFWs and reduce tourists as well by severely restricting short-term rentals.

Can they even restrict STRs or is that a jurisdictional issue?

I assumed that STRs would be municipal or at most, provincial.

 

[Northern Light]

Can they even restrict STRs or is that a jurisdictional issue?

I assumed that STRs would be municipal or at most, provincial.

It would probably be an assertion of POGG powers (Peace, Order and Good Government); keep in mind, provinces govern real estate, but Canada (Federally) imposed restrictions on foreign buyers of same.

The Feds could certainly prohibit foreign ownership of STRs, but I imagine could make an assertion on the broader question. How the provinces would feel about that........is a fair question. On the other hand, virtually every province is claiming a housing crisis, I'm not sure they would want to come out and assert a right to STRs, that would be interesting politics.

The Feds also have taxing power, and could simply impose a 100% surtax on STR earnings that would probably render them non-viable.

 

[Richard White]

I'm not sure they would want to come out and assert a right to STRs, that would be interesting politics.

Quebec and Alberta might as they are against everything Ottawa suggests.

Quebec may try making the case that it would hurt tourism in Quebec City and Montreal. Alberta may come back and say that it will hurt tourism in Calgary and Edmonton or that it would impact housing in the oil and gas sector.

 

[toraerach]

The Feds also have taxing power, and could simply impose a 100% surtax on STR earnings that would probably render them non-viable.

There are likely many tools in the federal government's toolbox here, especially if they're willing to be creative. For example, I am not terribly familiar with the ins and outs of federal vs. provincial jurisdiction over insurance companies, but would it be possible to forbid providers from insuring buildings used as STRs? Could there also be an avenue available through the regulation of platforms facilitating STRs (e.g., AirBnB, etc.), which presumably falls under federal jurisdiction? Perhaps we could also forbid banks from offering mortgages unless the dwelling is to be used as the owner's primary residence or a long-term rental?

Of course, any effort to clamp down on STRs needs to take rooming houses and their vital role in preventing homelessness into account. I would also expect some provision to allow STRs in areas like cottage country, which, if not carefully outlined, could water down regulations to the point of uselessness.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Well yes. It's a known problem. And the Boomers kept voting in governments who kicked the can down the road and are now hoping austerity gets delayed till after they are gone.

That’s just silly. People are busy living their lives and expect their governments to manage government matters. CPP has a surplus due to government and actuary planning and good markets. The future demands of OAS were wholly predictable and should have had the necessary funding. But Keith, what are we doing here? I'm not going to convince you of anything, and I just trigger a dismissal. It's why I begin to so disdain discussion forums, as there's little discussion, rather than win/lose debate and gotchas going on.

 

[kEiThZ]

The future demands of OAS were wholly predictable and should have had the necessary funding.

Yes. And it's a mistake I genuinely hope we learn from in the future. It's why I don't want to see things climate policy or defence renewal or housing getting can kicked. I hope my generation leaves a better world than we received.

But Keith, what are we doing here? I'm not going to convince you of anything, and I just trigger a dismissal. It's why I begin to so disdain discussion forums, as there's little discussion, rather than win/lose debate and gotchas going on.

Apologies if I made you feel this way. I wasn't trying to play gotcha. Just voicing my frustration.

 

[afransen]

That’s just silly. People are busy living their lives and expect their governments to manage government matters. CPP has a surplus due to government and actuary planning and good markets. The future demands of OAS were wholly predictable and should have had the necessary funding. But Keith, what are we doing here? I'm not going to convince you of anything, and I just trigger a dismissal. It's why I begin to so disdain discussion forums, as there's little discussion, rather than win/lose debate and gotchas going on.

CPP is partially funded. OAS is pay as you go, much like Social Security in the US (this has a reserve that Congress has raided and replaced with IOUs). Harper tried to raise the eligibility age to 67, but this was rolled back due to outcry (probably mainly from boomers approaching this age). I think millenials if not Gen X expect OAS age to be increased before it becomes relevant for us. Would not be surprised to see it rise to 70.

 

[afransen]

It would probably be an assertion of POGG powers (Peace, Order and Good Government); keep in mind, provinces govern real estate, but Canada (Federally) imposed restrictions on foreign buyers of same.

The Feds could certainly prohibit foreign ownership of STRs, but I imagine could make an assertion on the broader question. How the provinces would feel about that........is a fair question. On the other hand, virtually every province is claiming a housing crisis, I'm not sure they would want to come out and assert a right to STRs, that would be interesting politics.

The Feds also have taxing power, and could simply impose a 100% surtax on STR earnings that would probably render them non-viable.

I think this would be wildly unpopular with Canadians and would be incredibly disruptive to the real estate markets in areas like Muskoka/etc. Lots of cottages made available as STR for when the owner is not using it.

 

[Northern Light]

I think this would be wildly unpopular with Canadians, and would be incredibly disruptive to the real estate markets in areas like Muskoka/etc. Lots of cottages made available as STR for when the owner is not using it.

It would certainly be unpopular w/those who have turned cottages into investment properties. I'm ok w/being unpopular w/this group, just as I am w/investors buying unlivable 'boxes' in Toronto and Vancouver, pre-construction for the purpose of flipping, or even renting.

The very act of short-term rental is a disruption of the normative market.

Let be clear, the cottage-ownership class in Muskoka is now quite an elite group and a very small portion of the voting public.

Preventing properties from being used this way would likely force large scale sales, which would depress the market price substantially, and in turn make cottage ownership more accessible to more families.

Even those taking advantage of STRs are generally very well heeled, prices are often quite steep relative to traditional hotels, never mind camping.

Zero sympathy from me for what I see as sociopathic market manipulators who have monopolized properties and inflated the cost of cottaging beyond the typical middle income family.

 

[lenaitch]

It would probably be an assertion of POGG powers (Peace, Order and Good Government); keep in mind, provinces govern real estate, but Canada (Federally) imposed restrictions on foreign buyers of same.

The Feds could certainly prohibit foreign ownership of STRs, but I imagine could make an assertion on the broader question. How the provinces would feel about that........is a fair question. On the other hand, virtually every province is claiming a housing crisis, I'm not sure they would want to come out and assert a right to STRs, that would be interesting politics.

The Feds also have taxing power, and could simply impose a 100% surtax on STR earnings that would probably render them non-viable.

Any federal exercise of its residual power under Section 91 would be heavily litigated by the provinces. Keep in mind that the section reads:

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces
(emphasis mine)

They would have to convince the courts that there existed an emergency or some other compelling reason that could not be addressed through existing legislation and powers.

Regardless, it would be a clumsy response that would treat all areas of the country equally. They would be much better advised to stay in their lane and deal with foreign property ownership using the powers they already have.

BTW, any attempt to control or regulate STRs would have nothing to do with boarding/rooming houses. They are a distinct land use class of commercial property with their own rules and limitations

 

[kEiThZ]

It would certainly be unpopular w/those who have turned cottages into investment properties. I'm ok w/being unpopular w/this group, just as I am w/investors buying unlivable 'boxes' in Toronto and Vancouver, pre-construction for the purpose of flipping, or even renting.

The very act of short-term rental is a disruption of the normative market.

Let be clear, the cottage-ownership class in Muskoka is now quite an elite group and a very small portion of the voting public.

Preventing properties from being used this way would likely force large scale sales, which would depress the market price substantially, and in turn make cottage ownership more accessible to more families.

Even those taking advantage of STRs are generally very well heeled, prices are often quite steep relative to traditional hotels, never mind camping.

Zero sympathy from me for what I see as sociopathic market manipulators who have monopolized properties and inflated the cost of cottaging beyond the typical middle income family.

This is some bizarre anti-capitalist fantasy that won't fly with most Canadians. I doubt the "cost of cottaging" makes it to the top ten list of most Canadians, let alone middle income families.

STRs are a problem in cities, where people want cheap housing close to employment. Not many people see STRs in cottage country as a problem. Heck, for those of us who aren't loaded enough to own cottages, STRs actually offer a great way to access cottages for a few days to weeks.