Leaked memo shows Trudeau warned immigration would cause housing crisis

[CdnFox]

Leaked memo shows Trudeau warned immigration would cause housing crisis

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was warned in June 2022 by Secretary of the Cabinet Janice Charette that his immigration policy since taking office in 2015 triggered Canada’s housing affordability crisis.

Charette, appointed by Trudeau less than a month earlier, directly blamed him for Canada’s escalating housing prices and severe housing shortage.

Trudeau’s response was to ignore the warning and announce that he would bring in more immigrants.

He also blamed the provinces for not “stepping up” to fix the housing problem.

“The purpose of this note is to provide you with an analytic summary of the report’s findings,” wrote Charette in a classified memorandum Report by Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation: Canada’s Housing Supply Shortage, obtained by The Counter Signal.

The memo was sent directly to Trudeau.

“There is broad agreement among experts that homebuilding has been insufficient in comparison with housing demand in recent years, particularly with the increase in immigration since 2015.” 

[CdnFox]

Well there you go.  The liberals and their economic experts knew that the housing crisis was due to Trudeau's immigration policy, warned him, and he gave exactly zero effs.

The housing crisis plays a massive role in the inflation/interest crisis. WIthout it inflation would have been tolerable and rates would not have had to climb that high.

Justin trudeau is directly respnosible for most of our inflation/interest rate issues right now and he's largely to blame for the housing crisis being this severe.

PP will have a real chance to look like a hero when he gets in by easing those problems with a few relatively simple things and he'll buy himself the time to do the more permanent fixes.

[Zeitgeist]

Immediately slash immigration and carbon taxes.  Immediately!!!! 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Immediately slash immigration and carbon taxes.  Immediately!!!! 

Basically - athough carbon tax may have to have a 'phased' reduction, lowering quickly but over a period of time. Partly due to the hit on gov't revenue (we all know it was never neutral right?) which will need to be adjusted for but mostly to make sure unscrupulous parties don't use it as an opportunity to keep prices slighlty inflated and profit unreasonably from it.

But yeah.  We cut immigration significantly, which will improve housing/rent availability (for a few years only, but that gives us time), and we ax the tax as fast as possible and we start slashing BAD spending. No more billion dollar arrivecan apps.  No more CBC.

No more useless development bank. THAT was a waste of money - if we're going to do something do a "homemaker's" bank whereby qualified developers who promise to build homes under specific conditions where they might not have been AS profitable in the past get interest free loans till the project completes PROVIDED it happens very fast etc.  The CMHC reserves can fund it.  

Start using attrition to reduce the public service.

Then tell the unions to stuff it and look at more automation. Use websites and apps to improve things like immigration and applying for gov't services. There's an upfront cost but it's not crazy. 

There's things we can do day one to stop the pain and buy time - and things we can do that won't pay off till year three but will eventually allow for permanent solutions.  You just have to give a crap and I think pierre does.

[Perspektiv]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Trudeau’s response was to ignore the warning and announce that he would bring in more immigrants.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to bring in more immigrants.

Canada is a highly multicultural country. We love and are reputed for this diversity.

The issue here, is that Trudeau pushed more for the theatrics, and virtue signaling, than the pragmatic approach to our worker shortages.

IE bringing in skilled workers, and having a cap being brought in, that reflects our situation.

The fact he is going for 500k a year, has everything to do with virtue signaling and shaming his opposition for not "doing enough", than any actual substance.

[PIK]

14 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

There is nothing wrong with wanting to bring in more immigrants.

Canada is a highly multicultural country. We love and are reputed for this diversity.

The issue here, is that Trudeau pushed more for the theatrics, and virtue signaling, than the pragmatic approach to our worker shortages.

IE bringing in skilled workers, and having a cap being brought in, that reflects our situation.

The fact he is going for 500k a year, has everything to do with virtue signaling and shaming his opposition for not "doing enough", than any actual substance.

There is alot wrong with bringing in more immigrants, we are running out of sidewalks to house them. It's all about future votes, nothing to do with the country. One thing is,that the immigrant can teach us on how to live in a 3rd world country.

[CdnFox]

14 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

There is nothing wrong with wanting to bring in more immigrants.

Canada is a highly multicultural country. We love and are reputed for this diversity.

The issue here, is that Trudeau pushed more for the theatrics, and virtue signaling, than the pragmatic approach to our worker shortages.

IE bringing in skilled workers, and having a cap being brought in, that reflects our situation.

The fact he is going for 500k a year, has everything to do with virtue signaling and shaming his opposition for not "doing enough", than any actual substance.

Skilled or not - if we don't have somewhere to house them then you can't be letting them in at all.  You can have as many immigrants as we can house and provide infrastructure for but no more. IF he wanted more immigrants he had to increase the supply of homes and other services, homes especially as that was severely lagging.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, PIK said:

There is alot wrong with bringing in more immigrants, we are running out of sidewalks to house them. It's all about future votes, nothing to do with the country. One thing is,that the immigrant can teach us on how to live in a 3rd world country.

Even the 'future voter' thing is pretty questionable.  Not all immigrants will become citizens - a lot never bother.  And of those who do it takes many years for most of them to do it and even then it's only about 80 percent.   And studies show that of that there is VERY low voter turnout, less than the average by far.  And not all of them will vote liberal of course.  And - they tend to vote not based on who let them in and such or as an ethnic block but based on what the prevailing attitudes of the areas they move into are.   Which in most cases for most immigrants means they're already moving into liberal strongholds -  and if they don't there's a tendency to vote what's popular in that area.

So when you add up all the factors the libs aren't getting a lot of new voters out of it.  What hey want is the tax base and to avoid their overspending from catching up to them for as long as possible.

[Perspektiv]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

you can't be letting them in at all. 

The amount you let in, must be measured and based on the social need, as well as with keeping oneself aware of the capacities regarding how many can be brought in.

I don't think fully barring immigration is the answer, but one must be willing to put a hard cap on things if you're no longer able to afford to provide these people with the most basic rights.

34 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

especially as that was severely lagging.

He wasn't about helping businesses. If he was, he would have allowed specifically skilled immigrants to enter. Its all about the 500k number, which is all about virtue signaling. 

It will essentially be a mess for someone else to fix.

42 minutes ago, PIK said:

we are running out of sidewalks to house them

I think to bring in hundreds of thousands without a plan, is negligent.

But if you provide priority to say, someone who already has a place to stay, is already qualified and work ready, then barring such a person to me, would do more harm than good to an economy in desperation for people like this.

Am all for immigration. Am from immigrants who entered legally. But one must be pragmatic.

The southern US border or Trudeaus plan for 500k a year, is people turning a blind eye to a volume that is unsustainable, and much of which is just letting whoever in, and ultimately the tax payers will be on the hook for it once dust has.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Perspektiv said:

The amount you let in, must be measured and based on the social need, as well as with keeping oneself aware of the capacities regarding how many can be brought in.

I don't think fully barring immigration is the answer, but one must be willing to put a hard cap on things if you're no longer able to afford to provide these people with the most basic rights.

Our ability to support and house them has to be a hard stop number.  IT's not flexible - if you exceed it we get inflation and housing goes up and becomes unaffordable as we've seen.

You can have lower than that if you feel there's a reason to, but - if for whatever reason you want XXX number of immigrants you MUST be building enough homes - and if you want more you need to build more homes. So if the feds decide that they want to double immigration, they have to find a way to double home constructions etc.  It's just the way it is.

I'm not in favour of scrapping immigration by any means, and a reduction in immigration will only help for about 3 years. After that the housing developers will adjust to the new numbers and will be building too few homes again because our system is designed to force them into that.  So it's not the long term solution.

 

Quote

I think to bring in hundreds of thousands without a plan, is negligent.

I agree

Quote

But if you provide priority to say, someone who already has a place to stay, is already qualified and work ready, then barring such a person to me, would do more harm than good to an economy in desperation for people like this.

If they have a place to stay then someone else doesn't.  Thats the way it is right now.  We are short well over a million homes across the country and it's growing yearly - and about to get worse.

So that person moving here, even if they have found a place to stay, means everyone else's rents must go up if they can even find a  place.

 

Quote

The southern US border or Trudeaus plan for 500k a year, is people turning a blind eye to a volume that is unsustainable, and much of which is just letting whoever in, and ultimately the tax payers will be on the hook for it once dust has.

Probably true - but if that's the number he wants then fine - but he's GOT to make sure the houses and also medical and educational services are increasing at a rate that will comfortably support that.  And we're no where NEAR that  - which is why a tiny 2 br apartment in vancouver is going for 3500 a month right now utilities extra.

[Zeitgeist]

Yup, it’s not about whether we like immigrants.  Of course immigrants built this country.  It’s about the volume.  We need to keep Canada affordable for the people who are already here.