[Northern Light]

A bit of a step away from 'universal' dentalcare, but it is not insignificant. As always, the devil will be in the details as to how dentalcare is defined. If it follows most supplementary health coverage plans, services like crowns, implants, surgery, etc. as well as orthodontics are treated and covered differently than fillings, cleaning, etc.

I would prefer a Universal program for reasons both philosophical and practical. (example, many low-income people don't file taxes, how do they then access an income-contingent benefit?) But I will gladly accept this as progress.

As is most matters of federal funding, I suspect Quebec, and possibly Alberta if their current government lasts, will say 'give us the money without strings and we'll spend it as we see fit'.

To my surprise, and perhaps yours, what I'm hearing is that this will be a standalone federal program not done through transfers to the provinces.

This is how they can target launching the first phase this year.

Again, this begs the question of creating a second system for physician (dentist) payment and other duplication of infrastructure. Still again, progress, perhaps, if we're lucky setting the path for integrating this with regular 'medicare'.

 

[lenaitch]

I would prefer a Universal program for reasons both philosophical and practical. (example, many low-income people don't file taxes, how do they then access an income-contingent benefit?) But I will gladly accept this as a progress.



To my surprise, and perhaps yours, what I'm hearing is that this will be a standalone federal program not done through transfers to the provinces.

This is how they can target launching the first phase this year.

Again, this begs the question of creating a second system for physician (dentist) payment and other duplication of infrastructure. Still again, progress, perhaps, if we're lucky setting the path for integrating this with regular 'medicare'.

Well, that will be interesting. Other than "hospitals", the delivery of healthcare in any form isn't directly spoken to in the Constitution. With successes like Phoenix, I can image a nation full of dentist letting out a heavy sigh in anticipation. I wonder how much the federal bureaucracy will manage to soak up in administrative costs. At least most dentists are set up for both covered and non-covered billing.

 

[Bayer]

I hadn't looked at the details - income-tested programs are fundamentally unfair when you already have a progressive tax system. My income is higher than the upper limit, which means I will be paying (more than others) for another program I will be unable to use.

 

[Northern Light]

I hadn't looked at the details - income-tested programs are fundamentally unfair when you already have a progressive tax system. My income is higher than the upper limit, which means I will be paying (more than others) for another program I will be unable to use.

I would prefer a universal model as well; though the lens through which I view it would be such:

1) Many low income people don't file their taxes, how do they then access a means-tested program?

2) Affluent people having a high participation rate in a program tends to be good for its quality. That kids from Forest Hill and Leaside and The Beach are as or more likely to attend a local public school than a private one
speaks well to the quality of public education; I feel healthcare is no different. The only means-tested program that really makes sense to me is any form of income supplement.

3) Administrative simplicity. Universal programs are more cost efficient generally than means-tested ones. They have a lower administrative expense ratio and less hassle for citizens and the civil service alike.

****

Notwithstanding that, I will view this as progress, because:

a) It will substantially reduce the number of people who fail to get medically necessary dental care due to financial circumstances

b) It will lower the cost impact of taking the program fully universal at a future date.

 

[Northern Light]

A federal news release came out touting the accomplishment of significant poverty reduction in 2020, which they rightly tie to the Covid relief programs, specifically the $2,000 per month made available to people
who asserted they were jobless and/or had a material contraction in income.

Canada’s poverty rate decreased significantly in 2020 - Canada.ca

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Canada has taken action to support Canadians and the Canadian economy. The economic shock wrought by the pandemic required an unprecedented government response to help Canadians weather its aftereffects.

www.canada.ca

They were excited to note:

This immediately brought the following observation from me:

Those programs are or will shortly be completely repealed; dropping anyone in similar circumstances down to one of Ontario Works/ODSP (or their provincial equivalent) or EI.

When their monthly income drops back to $733 - ~$1,200.....will there be a press release next year noting their return to poverty?

It also makes me want to ask......what about that remaining 6.4%? I suspect these were people largely in two groups:

1) People already on OW/ODSP or similar who could not qualify for the Federal program as a result.

2) People who continued to work (grocery store clerks come to time) whose minimum wage checks left them impoverished.

I'm happy to give the government the credit it is due; provided it doesn't undo its own good work, and shows some initiative for further improvement.

 

[Soop]

This is literally how our parliamentary democracy works. Or just upset that PP will be cooling his heels for three years?

Have they forgotten that they had 2 terms as a minority government?

 

[Northern Light]

Leak on the Housing section of Tomorrow's Federal Budget:

Federal budget to include $10B housing plan, $8B for defence

As Canadians face a cost of living crunch, tackling housing affordability is going to be a main feature of Thursday's federal budget, seeing the Liberals earmark $10 billion towards this aim. The 2022 federal budget will also include a defence spending increase over multiple years, but the...

www.ctvnews.ca

From the above:

- A ban on Foreigners buying homes in Canada for the next 2 years (permanent residents, students here, TFWs and others w/legal status here are exempt)
(pssst this doesn't do much at all)

- A tax-free savings account targeting first-time home buyers with sums up to 40k.
(stimulating demand on the one hand......while being wholly inadequate on the other.......a 20% downpayment in Toronto is not 40k!)

- Also:

Ooookkkay then....

4B to speed up approvals? Is this really the answer? How about putting the 4B towards affordable housing.........just a thought.

Edit to add: If you excluded land costs, pre-supposing you could find public land on which to build, for free, at typical construction costs 4B should get you ~20,000 units.

If only 15% of those went to Toronto that would reduce homelessness (shelter population) by more than 1/3 (allowing for some of the housing being for couples/families)

 

[kEiThZ]

This is how Pierre Poilievre is going to end up as Trudeau's successor.....

The LPC seems to be going out of its way to impoverish Millennials and permanently dissuade them from voting for the Liberals again. They really seem clueless to the level of anger on housing, from everybody under 40.

 

[afransen]

4B to speed up approvals? Is this really the answer? How about putting the 4B towards affordable housing.........just a thought.

I'm skeptical that government built affordable housing is really an answer. $4b is certainly not enough to have any meaningful impact on affordability.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Canada’s 2022 federal budget will be released this week. Here’s a preview of what Canadians can likely expect​

From link.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland will deliver the 2022 federal budget on April 7 at 4 p.m. ET. The budget is expected to have three principal themes: climate change, housing affordability and Canada’s role in the world.

Thursday’s budget is expected to have three principal themes: measures to address climate change, housing affordability and Canada’s role in the world. The latter is a late addition that will see Ottawa boost defence spending in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It will also include money for cybersecurity to combat foreign disinformation campaigns.

The 2022 federal budget will also be an opportunity for the government to outline how it intends to wind down the massive emergency spending related to the COVID-19 pandemic, while delivering on the billions in promised new spending from last year’s Liberal Party election platform and the recently announced parliamentary co-operation agreement with the NDP.

Other potential items to look for in the budget:

• Housing: The Liberal election platform promised $4-billion to build 100,000 new homes by 2025, with Ottawa giving money directly to municipalities to speed up new residential construction. It also pledged another $2.7-billion to repair and build affordable housing units. Rachelle Younglai reports that Ottawa is facing pressure to address Canada’s affordable-housing problem in Thursday’s budget.
• Climate change: Other big-ticket items include $9-billion for a range of climate programs and billions for green economy initiatives, such as clean technology and investments in manufacturing zero-emission vehicles.
• Defence: A Scotiabank report that offers a primer ahead of the federal budget also expects another $12-billion to top up defence spending. Steven Chase and Patrick Brethour report that Canada’s defence spending could see a boost to fulfill its NATO promises and protect Arctic sovereignty.
• Electric vehicles: The budget will also include about $2-billion on a strategy to accelerate Canada’s production and processing of critical minerals needed for the electric vehicle supply chain.

On Tuesday, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he received an advance briefing on the federal budget and expects to see “first steps” toward national dental care and other NDP priorities:

• The March agreement included pledges to launch a new dental care program for low-income Canadians, starting with under 12-year-olds in 2022 and full implementation by 2025.
• It also committed the government to pass a Canada Pharmacare Act by 2023 and provide the provinces with “additional ongoing investments” for health care.
• Mr. Singh said he also expects to see measures that address housing shortages and climate change, given they were also mentioned in the deal with the Liberals.

The recent agreement between the Liberals and the NDP did not include any costing estimates. Though a recent Scotiabank report estimates the Liberal-NDP pact will add another $15-billion to $20-billion over the life of the three-year agreement – and potentially $40-billion by 2027. Meanwhile, according to a report released Tuesday by Desjardins economist Randall Bartlett, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated the NDP’s proposed national pharmacare plan would cost more than $11-billion a year.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I'm skeptical that government built affordable housing is really an answer. $4b is certainly not enough to have any meaningful impact on affordability.

Affordable housing > no affordable housing. Our Social Housing waitlist is 80,000 just here in Toronto (7 - 12 years); it's 10,000 in Ottawa (5+ years), and 25,000 in Montreal ("extensive"). According to Global News, there are almost 300,000 people waiting for affordable housing in the country. https://globalnews.ca/news/6206469/affordable-housing-canada-study/

Getting these people off the market for affordable housing without raising demand for private rentals will decrease prices, and reduce waiting times.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm skeptical that government built affordable housing is really an answer. $4b is certainly not enough to have any meaningful impact on affordability.

It won't. It's the appearance of them doing something. Meanwhile, they will push demand inducing policies like the TFSA for first time homebuyers.

This is government actively working to fund Boomer retirements through Millennial homebuyers. What a terrible policy. What's the excuse going to be when brain drain kicks in, because professionals can't get a decent return on their education thanks to higher taxes and extreme home prices?

 

[Northern Light]

I'm skeptical that government built affordable housing is really an answer. $4b is certainly not enough to have any meaningful impact on affordability.

Affordable housing > no affordable housing. Our Social Housing waitlist is 80,000 just here in Toronto (7 - 12 years); it's 10,000 in Ottawa (5+ years), and 25,000 in Montreal ("extensive"). According to Global News, there are almost 300,000 people waiting for affordable housing in the country. https://globalnews.ca/news/6206469/affordable-housing-canada-study/

Getting these people off the market for affordable housing without raising demand for private rentals will decrease prices, and reduce waiting times.

I'll add to what Direction North is saying above....

There are two discrete issues in housing affordability; one is affordability in ownership; and in market-rent, for the broad middle-class. For them, 4B in spending on deeply affordable housing does very little; though it might nip at the margins on market rent.

The second affordability issue is for those that are actually homeless or on the cusp of same, skipping meals to pay the rent.
For those people market-affordability is a non-issue, in that if you depressed prices by 50% they would still be out of reach for the vast majority of this group.
They require some form of rent-geared-to-income housing. In that category, the 4B would be quite useful, if insufficient to the scale of the problem.

****

On the broader question of market-affordability, we can all agree that what appears to be in tomorrow's budget isn't merely wrong-headed, or ineffectual, though its both, it will likely make things modestly worse by further goosing demand at the margins.

There has to be to clear action to both goose supply; and to reduce demand.

There are policy measures, legislative measures, and financial measures that could all help; as would an effort to grow incomes particularly at the low income and lower-middle income level.
Instead of that, if you missed it, the Feds just announced they will let in a bunch more TFWs; who, for the most part, are serving the purpose of wage-suppression by increasing the labour supply. Sigh.

Wrong-headed one end to the other.

 

[kEiThZ]

Remember this budget. When Millennials and Zoomers shockingly vote in a conservative majority in 2025, you'll know why.

 

[APTA-2048]

Remember this budget. When Millennials and Zoomers shockingly vote in a conservative majority in 2025, you'll know why.

I’m not as convinced. They will probably just stay home. The Millennials I know who find the Conservative message appealing already have their life set. Got a steady job, had kids, and bought a house. Those who haven’t (myself included) can’t stomach the Conservatives social positions and don’t trust them to help with housing despite what they say. Essentially, Liberal or Conservative, we see the issue of housing remaining the same.