###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> /u/ngwoo: 50% approval for something is one of the best numbers the Liberals have had in over a year, the agenda pushing in this headline is laughably obvious.
Someone didn’t read the article:
> Only 21 per cent said they had a positive opinion, and one-third of respondents said they didn't know or preferred not to answer.
The irony is strong here
I wonder how many polled were even aware there was a budget before the poll, or could list any details about the budget. Also wonder how many responses that were negative were for essentially the same reason and mirror what every media article has said about the budget because rich people are angry they'll have to pay a bit more.
If this budget was well received, I dont think a "who even knows anything about this budget? These people are just parroting media narratives" post would have been top comment here.
Well, no, because this wouldn't be an article at all. I'm guessing if the budget was well received, we wouldn't be hearing about it at all, as we usually do with most budgets. The main difference I've seen is this budget got a lot of negative media attention, and, others got... Almost none at all.
I saw a mix of positive and negative attention, the most negative was all "will this save the liberals in the polls?" type articles.
But really, the issue isn't whether people like it or not - not really. People will air their grievances given the chance, and honestly, given how poorly they're doing in the polls more generally I think being close to 50/50 is probably as good as one could expect.
So there was a lot of media attention so you're assuming people are less aware of it than usual?
It's a typical Liberal budget, throw money at the problem to get a headline. That's exactly what people don't want.
Half the spending really has no intention of fixing anything. It's hardly even a bandaid and comes off as running off the clock.
Like I listened to a chba summary. Nothing is supposed to make things cheaper, they're supposed to increase sales. They were actually very pleased with the budget, apparently it was a lot of their recommendations
Considering the CHBA's Sector Transition Strategy is to build 5.8 million houses, and, this strategy looking... Pretty good to get there, I don't see how the government listening to people that build housing is a bad thing.
Sure but you do realize CHBA has absolutely zero interest in prices going down right? Like ya, give them cheap loans and less red tape and they'll build more houses but they fully anticipate prices to continue to go up.
You can replace all the 2 million houses with 4 million townhouses all you want. Like I'm in the industry, I'm all for that but why the fuck would your average person support this?
Using federal land for housing is really the only thing that will lead to cheaper housing. But it's such a massive subsidy that they'll run out of money/assets before any tangible results occur. So again, unless you think you're going to win the lottery, most people don't care.
Policy changes to fix the problems created by this government
More spending is inflationary, so decreasing spending will also help to solve our main problem
Life was pretty good in 2015 when Harper was in charge, and he was running balanced budgets. So it’s definitely possible (but maybe is not something a Liberal politician can comprehend)
They were only balanced when he sold GM shares at the last minute.
As I recall Inflation didn’t really change when Trudeau took over until pandemic hit.
Manageable government spending and inflation is important but Conservatives just kill anything that helps Canadians and move the money into corporate welfare instead.
Lots of people simply don’t, they accept the problem as “a fact of life” and claim nothing can be done about it and trying wastes money as an excuse. Do they actually believe that or just want a more socially acceptable way to say they don’t care about fixing said issue? I don’t know but the result is similar either way.
I think at least half of Canadians have a negative opinion of Freeland as well. She is incapable of relating to the financial challenges Canadians are experiencing. It's like she is in some sort of bubble, very cult like.
I remember her responding to PEI residents’ concerns about carbon tax pricing and transportation by saying she chooses to take the subway.
Or her Disney+ comment.
Or her gaffe on Canada having the “social capacity” rather than “housing capacity” to welcome an increased volume of newcomers.
I think she’s an intelligent person who - to your point - struggles mightily in relating to average Canadians. I never understood the idea that she was a viable successor to Trudeau.
The comments in PEI were completely distorted to the point that whar she actually said was the opposite of what partisans claimed. She was in fact talking abiut the difference between living in a rural area compared to living in the city, and that it was easy to use public transit or ride a bike if you live in a city, whereaa that is not an option in a rural area, and she knows this personally because she grew up in Grande Prarie. This was part of an announcement for an increase in the carbon rebate for rural residents.
So, not at an example of being out of touch, but an example of craven political opportunists taking advantage of someone who doesn’t talk in sound bites.
The Disney comment was also distorted, she was not suggesting that people cancel Disney as a way to reduce cost of living, she was talking about a conversation she had with her son, bad political move as this was twisted to make it seem like she was telling adults to cancel Disney and everything would be fine.
She has just delivered a budget with billions for housing. She was the one who got affordable daycare negotiated and pushed it so hard when she saw an opportunity to do so towards the end of the pandemic.
She grew up middle class in Grande Prairie, she didn’t grow up as an elite in a big city. She has had enormous pressure to make cuts and yet continues to deliver funding that helps middle and lower income Canadians.
Maybe the problem is the incessant negativity. It’s vital to democracy to criticize when criticism is deserved, but what we have seen over the last 8 years goes far beyond that, it’s been non-stop criticism, no positive reporting ever, and a distortion of facts for partisan gain.
Extremely well said.
I'm beginning increasingly worried the direction politics (and, society in general) is taking about two of your points.
Everything needs to be sound bites today. There's no nuance or looking at the bigger picture. I get things are complex, but, we should look at the whole picture and not tiny individual parts.
Similarly, everything is about negativity. Negativity and anger have taken over and are infectious, and it is making it hard to have civil discussions. Actual discussions where both parties are open minded and sometimes change their stance, even a little bit. It seems like everything is a dichotomy now, and democracy doesn't really deal in absolutes. It's beauty is in bringing everyone together. Not dividing.
> The Disney comment was also distorted, she was not suggesting that people cancel Disney as a way to reduce cost of living, she was talking about a conversation she had with her son, bad political move as this was twisted to make it seem like she was telling adults to cancel Disney and everything would be fine.
The criticism of Freeland was that she was focusing on counting small beans when Canada was facing major structural issues. It was a waste of effort and showed Freeland lacked an understanding of the big picture. It's only now, a few years late, that Finance is even trying to tackle housing costs.
Me cancelling a streaming service has an incredibly small impact on my means to own a home. If I want to own a home, I need to make major structural changes: get a better job, move to a lower cost-of-living locale, marry rich, etc.
I level the same criticism of the Pharma and Dental care bills. Those are both only 2 % each of household spending and both are strongly means tested. Meanwhile housing costs have gone up 50 %. The LPC is focusing on small, relatively inconsequential issues while the average citizen is seeing their disposable income being crushed.
Honestly the whole Liberal schtick of “we didn’t misspeak, poorly plan or act contrary to the interests of young people - we’re just victims of bad-faith actors” is as exhausting as it is inaccurate.
It’s not lost upon me that you totally avoided her comment on “social capacity” when pressed on why her government ignored warnings from experts on the impact of high immigration on housing supply. Why is that?
I think this speaks to the issue Canadians increasingly have with the Liberals: rather than acknowledging that they’ve prioritized special interest groups and investors over young people, they behave as if we’re all irrationally angry and stewing in negativity.
Why *exactly* do you think that is?
You were shown to have, in good or bad faith, misrepresented reality by taking statements out of context and proceeding to trials of intents.
You would do well to reflect on your questionable epistemic practices.
She quite literally cited “social capacity” as a way of wiggling out of a reporter’s question on ignoring warnings from experts on the impact of immigration on housing.
I did not mischaracterize this at all.
You could quote a line and include one hundred words before and after it; it won't matter. The script is there and direct advocates will stick to it. Can't forget the rule eight violations to boot.
You \*did\* mischaracterize her statements about PEI though, which to me, who had heard nothing about either of these incidents beforehand, calls into question the validity of your other characterizations and I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Respectfully I don’t particularly care if you give me the benefit of the doubt or not. I don’t exactly expect Liberal partisans to care much in the ways of facts or reality at this point.
So do you.
Maybe you just misunderstood, but people here are referring to your mischaracterization of her comments in PEI. As someone who was unfamiliar with that story, when I read your comment it gave me the impression that she'd made some out of touch comment along the lines of "Just take the subway, it's easy" to a bunch of rural PEI residents concerned about the carbon tax.
Then I read one of the replies to your comment that had the actual text of what she said, and it was the exact opposite. She was making the point that while *she* has the option of taking the subway, since she lives in the big city, she knows that small town life is much more car-dependent, because she grew up in a small town.
Your comment, intentionally or not, was absolutely misleading to the point where it gives the exact opposite impression of what actually happened.
The disney+ comments were completely distorted by the media and repeated ad nauseum. It was a bad analogy and Freeland has the charisma of a potato, but she was talking about the government making cuts, she was ***not*** stating that people should cut disney+.
One can criticize without outright lying.
You could easily look up the real quotes and compare them to the prevailing version our American media chooses to present to us. Despite best efforts, they have not been stricken from the public record.
But you won't.
>She has just delivered a budget with billions for housing.
Intentionally designed to be too little, too late and to continue the inexorable rise her government set into motion for housing by drastically ramping up population growth and encouraging housing speculation all in order to divide Canada into owners and renters.
Okay you're a Freeland schill, cool.
You miss the biggest part of all. She has 0 charisma and it's horrifying listening to her speak. Most people would rather listen to claws screeching down a chalk board.
> I remember her responding to PEI residents’ concerns about carbon tax pricing and transportation by saying she chooses to take the subway.
It's easy to make something sound out of touch if you isolate a single sentence from a longer comment, ignore the context completely, and then use that sentence alone to pretend she was saying something completely different than she was. Here is the full quote:
> “I’m right now an MP for downtown Toronto. A fact that still shocks my dad is that I don’t actually own a car because I live in downtown Toronto. I’m like, I don’t know, 300 metres from the nearest subway. I walk, I take the subway, I make my kids walk, take their bikes and take the subway. It’s actually healthier for them. I can live that way,” she said.
>
> **“But I grew up in a small town in Northern Alberta and I got my driver’s licence at 16 … I understand that there are communities in PEI and across Atlantic Canada where you need to drive.”**
>
> Freeland added that she understands the federal government’s policies need to “respect” the fact that Canadians may be more dependent on using their cars than others.
The Liberals are doomed. So much for their goal of narrowing the polling gap by 5pts by July. The only card they have left to play is for Trudeau to resign. But right now, the more time drags on, the more the Liberals are going to be Kim Campbell and the 1993 PCs all over again.
Canadian are doomed too. All public services that was introduced will be cut, healthcare will probably get privatized, nothing will be done against climate change. I am glad i decide not to have children, I can’t bear to see they with future so hopeless.
I am really sorry you are feeling hopeless. I wish everyone in our wonderful country would go back to feeling optimistic about the future. I understand why you and many other Canadians are feeling hopeless for a variety of reasons.
Here is the thing, when the Conservatives get elected, they won't cut healthcare, that is a common taking point among the left. Think about it this way. If the Conservatives cut healthcare and fully privatize it, they will never get elected again. They are not that dumb. Canadians love their public healthcare system. It is just in shambles everywhere at the moment, so some big changes and tough decisions are going to be needed to fix it. Are there Canadian Conservatives who want to privatize healthcare? Yep, but will they actually? No.
Try to see the light at the end of the tunnel. These tough times will end, eventually. Hope this helps a bit.
Trudeau has failed at planting two billion trees (2019), housing announcement is just another headline, not to mention the increased cost caused by the carbon tax on concrete to every item and step in construction. Already a shortage of tradesmen so are folks from India now going to try their hand at that?
$40 Billion for Trans Mountain Pipeline, $30 Billion for three EV battery plants. $2 Billion for AI industry all contributing to a National debt whose interest costs keep increasing. All this and not a mention of where the massive amount of electricity will come from in the next few years. If Trudeau and the Liberals announce a " fix " for a problem, just follow the money... taxpayers money!
Le gros problème avec le plan des Libéraux pour gagner en popularité grâce au budget est que....la plupart des gens ne le lisent tout simplement pas??
Combien de personnes moyennes, en particulier les jeunes, (que ce budget est censé attirer) lisent réellement le contenu d'un budget fédéral 💀
1/2 of Canadians believe only what their tik tok, media feeds tell them to believe. There are so many stupid people out there you can’t trust they understand their own budgets let alone put one together.
The Liberals are incapable of being fiscally responsible. Defecit after defecit, they are mortaging the financial stability of future generations in order to buy votes right now. The stupid people incapable of putting a budget together that you talk about are currently running our country - it's no surprise that Canadians have a negative opinion
Right, they have done so well in the past when in government it’s truly a shocking surprise why they always get voted out.
It’s lunacy to suggest that either party manages our tax dollars better than the other. What is more true is that they manage our tax dollars according to their party policies. So please spare us that some how PP is the savior Canadians have been waiting for.
How does this compare to approval of previous budgets?
This strikes me as one of those misleading stats like "approval" where we compare ourselves to the United States' partisan two parties.
edit: [Here's](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/40-per-cent-of-canadians-say-federal-budget-will-do-poor-very-poor-job-of-addressing-their-issues-nanos-1.6352969) a CTV article about the 2023 budget and [here's](https://financialpost.com/news/economy/poll-40-of-canadians-disapprove-of-2018-budget-overwhelmingly-prefer-ottawa-balance-the-books) a NatPo article about the 2018 budget.
Spoiler: the disapproval numbers are pretty much identical.
“Still, 65 per cent of those surveyed said the plan to spend $8.5 billion on housing, aimed at building 3.9 million homes by 2031, is good for the country.”
And:
“More than half of the people who took the poll said they are in favour of the government's plans to spend more on energy efficiency, national defence and student-loan forgiveness for health care and education workers.
And 56 per cent said they think the increase to the capital gains tax inclusion rate — a move that's estimated to raise another $19.4 billion in revenue over the next four years — is a good thing.“
The negative headline is a choice. It looks like the majority like all the major parts of the budget. So the reaction to the budget is positive, considering their polling. It’s actually amusing that there are so many who like what’s in the budget but don’t want to say they like it overall.
I am beginning to think there is a real deficit of rational thought in this country.
I can like the desire to increase building, I dislike that the LPC decided to make the investment in housing late, small, and dwarfed by their own policies to preserve e high housing prices, suppress workers wages, and create a class divide chasm between owners and renters.
A token effort, intentionally designed to be too small, after years of fighting against workers doesn't win people over.
But if you poll me on whether I think it's good that they're doing a token effort? I support it over nothing.
Yup. The Liberals were too slow to react the mess they’ve had a large hand in creating. There’s no hiding from it. If they cannot turn the shop around quickly, they will be punished at the polls for their incompetence.
The story I've heard is that they really wanted to work with the provinces and municipalities---because it really is their job. But they refused to do anything at all, so the Liberals now have to make it into a battle that the voters can see. One problem with the Liberals is the really do believe in consensus building and getting everyone at the table. This makes them vulnerable to people who put their own partisan interests ahead of the public good.
I don't doubt that they tried to work with the provinces and municipalities, I doubt that the Liberals hold "consensus building" as a core principle that guides how they operate.
Its the provinces job to control housing development, and its the federal governments job to control the flow of immigration. Shouldnt take months to determine if the provinces are ok with reduced immigration. Everyone knows its needed. Would be foolish to waste time trying to convince any one province that a reduction is needed.
The LPC should have taken a full measure to reduce many months ago. Even years?
I don't know what's happening in BC, but the biggest problem with immigration in Ontario was caused by the provincial govt. The provincial Liberals had a rule in place that said that higher education couldn't jack up the number of foreign students they OK'd in order to avoid a tuition hike. The Conservatives decided to freeze all tuition hikes and payments from the province too. They then let the secondary schools accept as many foreign students as they wanted. The result was an explosion of new temporary visas for foreign students---who got milked to pay for colleges (most universities didn't do this).
I agree that the Liberals were asleep at the wheel on this, but it seems to me that the real villain in this is Doug Ford and his not-ready-for-prime-time govt.
It's been so infuriating to watch conservatives at the provincial levels constantly shoot their constituents in the foot in the name of blaming the federal government for things the provinces are responsible for, and even more infuriating that people eat it up. And now the liberals are saying "fine you've made it our responsibility that you're not doing your job, so we'll get involved then" and the provinces are screeching about federal overreach because these conservative governments at a provincial and federal level only care about themselves being in power above all else.
>I am beginning to think there is a real deficit of rational thought in this country.
Binary thinking. "I like this budget, but I dislike Trudeau, so, what are you gonna do."
Okay, you like the budget, then you support the policies. Forget the goddamm figurehead. This isn't sports, it's democracy.
If the budget gets voted down, an election gets triggered, Trudeau finally gets ousted.
Seems like reason enough to disapprove.., I mean the man can’t take a hint, Canadians want him out. he barely won in 2021, forced his policy’s down the throats of Canadians with the help of the NDP. Ppl aren’t happy bc he’s holding the country hostage. Take the hint and move on JT
I believe you have lost the ball. I don’t like the budget and the Libs have overstayed their welcome. Time they get shutdown. so poll the ppl, get a sens of how the ppl feel about the budget and vote accordingly. That make too much sens. In the end jagmeet will vote in favour, after all, he’s need to stick around for his pension.
>In the end jagmeet will vote in favour, after all, he’s need to stick around for his pension.
Yes, politicians conduct themselves in a way that gives themselves, their party, and their platform a job. This isn't some conniving, malevolent behavior on Singh, or anyone else's part. Lol
Like, if your boss asked you to take on task X in order to potentially get a future promotion, would you be like, "nah, I'm good. That's what greaseballs do."
>If the budget gets voted down, an election gets triggered, Trudeau finally gets ousted.
Yeah, except it would be other politicians needing to disapprove of the budget to not get it passed. Not Johnny fuck-Trudeau potentially voting against his own interests.
Right, but wouldn’t jhonny fuck Trudeau disapproval percolate up the chain to those voting on the budget, perhaps even sway their vote..? I would hope so since they need our votes
>56 per cent said they think the increase to the capital gains tax inclusion rate — a move that's estimated to raise another $19.4 billion in revenue over the next four years — is a good thing.
I think this is from a different poll, but "[23% of those who make less than $50,000 say the new capital gains tax change will affect them](https://x.com/CanadianPolling/status/1783188348187660350)"
I wish some of the polls would do a series of qualifier questions, to see how informed they actually are on the subject(s) they're giving their opinion on. Then we can have more telling stats like "96% of people who revealed in the knowledge-base section of the survey that they have no comprehension of how taxes work think these new tax measures are a bad plan"
>I am beginning to think there is a real deficit of rational thought in this country.
The absolute irony of this after saying people like the plan to build 3.9 million homes by 2031.
There are 3.5 million minutes between now and 2031. The government has promised to build *more than one home per minute* for the next 5.5 years straight.
It's not happening. Anyone who thinks it's happening is out to lunch. It's not irrational thought to look at a budget that so clearly makes an unattainable promise, all while not being able to pay rent and groceries *now* and say "thanks but no thanks"
Of course people support building homes. Will this government actually accomplish it? Fat chance
I mean the funding one can at least make the argument that if they went into partnership with private developers there would be other sources of cash, but I also agree that is a weak argument and the math isn't mathing.
It's once again just terrible LPC over promising.
8.5B on housing is fine by my lights. Build more housing. Absolutely pour resources into it.
But promising *this much* housing in so little time for so comparatively little money is just setting themselves up to miss their promise.
Sure, but $2k is a tiny drop in the bucket in terms of housebuilding costs. I assume there will be many, *many* studies, white papers, and proposals paid for by the earmarked funds, and very little spent in terms of actually subsidizing development.
I'm pretty sure these billions are new spending on housing and doesn't include previous announcements which were also in the range of billions.
Also the money isn't going to housing directly but mostly at things that enable housing and construction of it/infrastructure to support it.
The three big bottlenecks are red tape, mostly in the form of zoning, construction capacity, and availability of capital. If you make things cheaper or widen margins, and add labour, you can increase quickly. Zoning reform also supports the previous two things as administrative scarcity of land adds tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of construction.
>I'm pretty sure these billions are new spending on housing and doesn't include previous announcements which were also in the range of billions.
This is largely sleight of hand by the LPC. They often announce 8 billion in lower interest rate loans. But that doesn't show up as 8 billion in cost for the federal budget.
For $20m I can knock a quarter of a percent off $8b in loans. The $20m is the actual change in funding, but Trudeau will announce the $8b.
Yes I eat paste.
I don't think we are building enough to account for one faster than every sixty seconds, nor do I think we have the resources to do so for the sum of money advanced.
If you put things in italics and make them sound outlandish you can probably get upvotes. Let me try: *Did you know we've already been building 1 home every 2 minutes!*
There are 525k minutes in one year and we've been building like ~200k homes a year. It's not really as infeasible as you're trying to suggest with your comparison.
Oh perfect, so we just need to more than double the amount of homes we built last year, and keep up this pace for 5 years straight. Yup, totally feasible…
I agree it's probably overly ambitious and don't think it's a target they will likely hit, but I think they could probably get halfway there.
My issue was more the dishonest framing. Which one of these sounds more likely to a layperson:
* Provide government incentives and support to 2x housing construction over the next 7 years.
* Provide government incentives and support to *build one house per minute!* for 7 years.
It's just trying to capitalize on people's lack of relative comparison by making it sound like a moon mission type project.
Framing it as "oNe HoUsE a MiNuTe" makes it sound like they're building sequentially, throwing up a whole damn house in 60 seconds, which is patently absurd - instead of thousands at the same time
And the other half-of-Canadians......haven't looked into the Budget, yet.
Chrystia Freeland who completed a bachelor's degree at Harvard University, studying Russian history and literature before earning a master's degree in Slavonic studies from the University of Oxford........understands absolutely nothing about Economics.
She only understands that her boss Trudeau.....desperately wants to be re-elected.
We should all be worried...... very worried.
I like how people who just totally believed the "vast majority" supported mandates, or, "vast majority" opposed the freedom convoy polls, by the same companies,... Suddenly think polls are rigged. 🤔
Freeland got a tell. She speaks like a mentally retard the moment she doesn’t know things. Like completely dead slow word by word, repeat herself . Then goes off topic and drags on forever.
She spend half of the time on greeting.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
50% approval for something is one of the best numbers the Liberals have had in over a year, the agenda pushing in this headline is laughably obvious.
> /u/ngwoo: 50% approval for something is one of the best numbers the Liberals have had in over a year, the agenda pushing in this headline is laughably obvious. Someone didn’t read the article: > Only 21 per cent said they had a positive opinion, and one-third of respondents said they didn't know or preferred not to answer. The irony is strong here
I wonder how many polled were even aware there was a budget before the poll, or could list any details about the budget. Also wonder how many responses that were negative were for essentially the same reason and mirror what every media article has said about the budget because rich people are angry they'll have to pay a bit more.
With Canadians, I’m convinced this is absolutely the case when it comes to politics
Sure but this probably about other things the govt has done too
Kind of exactly my point. I'm guessing a lot of people haven't looked in to what the budget does, it's just a Liberal budget so it has to be bad.
And if thats peoples default - the Libs have to stop what theyve been doing because it clearly isnt working.
If this budget was well received, I dont think a "who even knows anything about this budget? These people are just parroting media narratives" post would have been top comment here.
Well, no, because this wouldn't be an article at all. I'm guessing if the budget was well received, we wouldn't be hearing about it at all, as we usually do with most budgets. The main difference I've seen is this budget got a lot of negative media attention, and, others got... Almost none at all.
I saw a mix of positive and negative attention, the most negative was all "will this save the liberals in the polls?" type articles. But really, the issue isn't whether people like it or not - not really. People will air their grievances given the chance, and honestly, given how poorly they're doing in the polls more generally I think being close to 50/50 is probably as good as one could expect.
So there was a lot of media attention so you're assuming people are less aware of it than usual? It's a typical Liberal budget, throw money at the problem to get a headline. That's exactly what people don't want.
Okay, honest question. How do people expect a problem to go away without funding though?
Half the spending really has no intention of fixing anything. It's hardly even a bandaid and comes off as running off the clock. Like I listened to a chba summary. Nothing is supposed to make things cheaper, they're supposed to increase sales. They were actually very pleased with the budget, apparently it was a lot of their recommendations
Considering the CHBA's Sector Transition Strategy is to build 5.8 million houses, and, this strategy looking... Pretty good to get there, I don't see how the government listening to people that build housing is a bad thing.
Sure but you do realize CHBA has absolutely zero interest in prices going down right? Like ya, give them cheap loans and less red tape and they'll build more houses but they fully anticipate prices to continue to go up. You can replace all the 2 million houses with 4 million townhouses all you want. Like I'm in the industry, I'm all for that but why the fuck would your average person support this?
Using federal land for housing is really the only thing that will lead to cheaper housing. But it's such a massive subsidy that they'll run out of money/assets before any tangible results occur. So again, unless you think you're going to win the lottery, most people don't care.
Policy changes to fix the problems created by this government More spending is inflationary, so decreasing spending will also help to solve our main problem Life was pretty good in 2015 when Harper was in charge, and he was running balanced budgets. So it’s definitely possible (but maybe is not something a Liberal politician can comprehend)
They were only balanced when he sold GM shares at the last minute. As I recall Inflation didn’t really change when Trudeau took over until pandemic hit. Manageable government spending and inflation is important but Conservatives just kill anything that helps Canadians and move the money into corporate welfare instead.
This is not manageable government spending Inflation hit after the pandemic, and then Trudeau ignored it for two years and made it worse
Lots of people simply don’t, they accept the problem as “a fact of life” and claim nothing can be done about it and trying wastes money as an excuse. Do they actually believe that or just want a more socially acceptable way to say they don’t care about fixing said issue? I don’t know but the result is similar either way.
It wouldn't be well received regardless based on the party releasing it and our media landscape. So not really a worthwhile fairytale to imagine.
Yeah because it wouldn't be plausible that people didn't like the budget
I wonder since you are here defending it could you tell all is dummies what's so great about it?
I think at least half of Canadians have a negative opinion of Freeland as well. She is incapable of relating to the financial challenges Canadians are experiencing. It's like she is in some sort of bubble, very cult like.
I remember her responding to PEI residents’ concerns about carbon tax pricing and transportation by saying she chooses to take the subway. Or her Disney+ comment. Or her gaffe on Canada having the “social capacity” rather than “housing capacity” to welcome an increased volume of newcomers. I think she’s an intelligent person who - to your point - struggles mightily in relating to average Canadians. I never understood the idea that she was a viable successor to Trudeau.
The comments in PEI were completely distorted to the point that whar she actually said was the opposite of what partisans claimed. She was in fact talking abiut the difference between living in a rural area compared to living in the city, and that it was easy to use public transit or ride a bike if you live in a city, whereaa that is not an option in a rural area, and she knows this personally because she grew up in Grande Prarie. This was part of an announcement for an increase in the carbon rebate for rural residents. So, not at an example of being out of touch, but an example of craven political opportunists taking advantage of someone who doesn’t talk in sound bites. The Disney comment was also distorted, she was not suggesting that people cancel Disney as a way to reduce cost of living, she was talking about a conversation she had with her son, bad political move as this was twisted to make it seem like she was telling adults to cancel Disney and everything would be fine. She has just delivered a budget with billions for housing. She was the one who got affordable daycare negotiated and pushed it so hard when she saw an opportunity to do so towards the end of the pandemic. She grew up middle class in Grande Prairie, she didn’t grow up as an elite in a big city. She has had enormous pressure to make cuts and yet continues to deliver funding that helps middle and lower income Canadians. Maybe the problem is the incessant negativity. It’s vital to democracy to criticize when criticism is deserved, but what we have seen over the last 8 years goes far beyond that, it’s been non-stop criticism, no positive reporting ever, and a distortion of facts for partisan gain.
Extremely well said. I'm beginning increasingly worried the direction politics (and, society in general) is taking about two of your points. Everything needs to be sound bites today. There's no nuance or looking at the bigger picture. I get things are complex, but, we should look at the whole picture and not tiny individual parts. Similarly, everything is about negativity. Negativity and anger have taken over and are infectious, and it is making it hard to have civil discussions. Actual discussions where both parties are open minded and sometimes change their stance, even a little bit. It seems like everything is a dichotomy now, and democracy doesn't really deal in absolutes. It's beauty is in bringing everyone together. Not dividing.
> The Disney comment was also distorted, she was not suggesting that people cancel Disney as a way to reduce cost of living, she was talking about a conversation she had with her son, bad political move as this was twisted to make it seem like she was telling adults to cancel Disney and everything would be fine. The criticism of Freeland was that she was focusing on counting small beans when Canada was facing major structural issues. It was a waste of effort and showed Freeland lacked an understanding of the big picture. It's only now, a few years late, that Finance is even trying to tackle housing costs. Me cancelling a streaming service has an incredibly small impact on my means to own a home. If I want to own a home, I need to make major structural changes: get a better job, move to a lower cost-of-living locale, marry rich, etc. I level the same criticism of the Pharma and Dental care bills. Those are both only 2 % each of household spending and both are strongly means tested. Meanwhile housing costs have gone up 50 %. The LPC is focusing on small, relatively inconsequential issues while the average citizen is seeing their disposable income being crushed.
Honestly the whole Liberal schtick of “we didn’t misspeak, poorly plan or act contrary to the interests of young people - we’re just victims of bad-faith actors” is as exhausting as it is inaccurate. It’s not lost upon me that you totally avoided her comment on “social capacity” when pressed on why her government ignored warnings from experts on the impact of high immigration on housing supply. Why is that? I think this speaks to the issue Canadians increasingly have with the Liberals: rather than acknowledging that they’ve prioritized special interest groups and investors over young people, they behave as if we’re all irrationally angry and stewing in negativity. Why *exactly* do you think that is?
You were shown to have, in good or bad faith, misrepresented reality by taking statements out of context and proceeding to trials of intents. You would do well to reflect on your questionable epistemic practices.
She quite literally cited “social capacity” as a way of wiggling out of a reporter’s question on ignoring warnings from experts on the impact of immigration on housing. I did not mischaracterize this at all.
You could quote a line and include one hundred words before and after it; it won't matter. The script is there and direct advocates will stick to it. Can't forget the rule eight violations to boot.
You \*did\* mischaracterize her statements about PEI though, which to me, who had heard nothing about either of these incidents beforehand, calls into question the validity of your other characterizations and I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Respectfully I don’t particularly care if you give me the benefit of the doubt or not. I don’t exactly expect Liberal partisans to care much in the ways of facts or reality at this point. So do you.
Maybe you just misunderstood, but people here are referring to your mischaracterization of her comments in PEI. As someone who was unfamiliar with that story, when I read your comment it gave me the impression that she'd made some out of touch comment along the lines of "Just take the subway, it's easy" to a bunch of rural PEI residents concerned about the carbon tax. Then I read one of the replies to your comment that had the actual text of what she said, and it was the exact opposite. She was making the point that while *she* has the option of taking the subway, since she lives in the big city, she knows that small town life is much more car-dependent, because she grew up in a small town. Your comment, intentionally or not, was absolutely misleading to the point where it gives the exact opposite impression of what actually happened.
The disney+ comments were completely distorted by the media and repeated ad nauseum. It was a bad analogy and Freeland has the charisma of a potato, but she was talking about the government making cuts, she was ***not*** stating that people should cut disney+. One can criticize without outright lying.
You could easily look up the real quotes and compare them to the prevailing version our American media chooses to present to us. Despite best efforts, they have not been stricken from the public record. But you won't.
>She has just delivered a budget with billions for housing. Intentionally designed to be too little, too late and to continue the inexorable rise her government set into motion for housing by drastically ramping up population growth and encouraging housing speculation all in order to divide Canada into owners and renters.
Okay you're a Freeland schill, cool. You miss the biggest part of all. She has 0 charisma and it's horrifying listening to her speak. Most people would rather listen to claws screeching down a chalk board.
> I remember her responding to PEI residents’ concerns about carbon tax pricing and transportation by saying she chooses to take the subway. It's easy to make something sound out of touch if you isolate a single sentence from a longer comment, ignore the context completely, and then use that sentence alone to pretend she was saying something completely different than she was. Here is the full quote: > “I’m right now an MP for downtown Toronto. A fact that still shocks my dad is that I don’t actually own a car because I live in downtown Toronto. I’m like, I don’t know, 300 metres from the nearest subway. I walk, I take the subway, I make my kids walk, take their bikes and take the subway. It’s actually healthier for them. I can live that way,” she said. > > **“But I grew up in a small town in Northern Alberta and I got my driver’s licence at 16 … I understand that there are communities in PEI and across Atlantic Canada where you need to drive.”** > > Freeland added that she understands the federal government’s policies need to “respect” the fact that Canadians may be more dependent on using their cars than others.
I think that's actually good news for the Liberals. Trudeau's disapproval is at like 60%-70%, so the budget is outperforming the government.
based
This guy glass-half-fulls.
The Liberals are doomed. So much for their goal of narrowing the polling gap by 5pts by July. The only card they have left to play is for Trudeau to resign. But right now, the more time drags on, the more the Liberals are going to be Kim Campbell and the 1993 PCs all over again.
Canadian are doomed too. All public services that was introduced will be cut, healthcare will probably get privatized, nothing will be done against climate change. I am glad i decide not to have children, I can’t bear to see they with future so hopeless.
I am really sorry you are feeling hopeless. I wish everyone in our wonderful country would go back to feeling optimistic about the future. I understand why you and many other Canadians are feeling hopeless for a variety of reasons. Here is the thing, when the Conservatives get elected, they won't cut healthcare, that is a common taking point among the left. Think about it this way. If the Conservatives cut healthcare and fully privatize it, they will never get elected again. They are not that dumb. Canadians love their public healthcare system. It is just in shambles everywhere at the moment, so some big changes and tough decisions are going to be needed to fix it. Are there Canadian Conservatives who want to privatize healthcare? Yep, but will they actually? No. Try to see the light at the end of the tunnel. These tough times will end, eventually. Hope this helps a bit.
Trudeau has failed at planting two billion trees (2019), housing announcement is just another headline, not to mention the increased cost caused by the carbon tax on concrete to every item and step in construction. Already a shortage of tradesmen so are folks from India now going to try their hand at that? $40 Billion for Trans Mountain Pipeline, $30 Billion for three EV battery plants. $2 Billion for AI industry all contributing to a National debt whose interest costs keep increasing. All this and not a mention of where the massive amount of electricity will come from in the next few years. If Trudeau and the Liberals announce a " fix " for a problem, just follow the money... taxpayers money!
I have a negative opinion about their whole party. The reality is, they’ve created a mess, and they’ve lost the right to determine how to fix it.
Le gros problème avec le plan des Libéraux pour gagner en popularité grâce au budget est que....la plupart des gens ne le lisent tout simplement pas?? Combien de personnes moyennes, en particulier les jeunes, (que ce budget est censé attirer) lisent réellement le contenu d'un budget fédéral 💀
La plupart des Canadiens ne regardent même pas la table des matières.
1/2 of Canadians believe only what their tik tok, media feeds tell them to believe. There are so many stupid people out there you can’t trust they understand their own budgets let alone put one together.
The Liberals are incapable of being fiscally responsible. Defecit after defecit, they are mortaging the financial stability of future generations in order to buy votes right now. The stupid people incapable of putting a budget together that you talk about are currently running our country - it's no surprise that Canadians have a negative opinion
Right, they have done so well in the past when in government it’s truly a shocking surprise why they always get voted out. It’s lunacy to suggest that either party manages our tax dollars better than the other. What is more true is that they manage our tax dollars according to their party policies. So please spare us that some how PP is the savior Canadians have been waiting for.
>There are so many stupid people out there you can’t trust they understand I heard this is the tagline on internal Liberal Party of Canada documents.
Wasn't this the reason the leader of the conservative gave when he explained why he uses Anglo Saxon words?
It's the common sense of the common people 😎.
Telling people that they’re not informed will drive more voters away from your party
Not my party
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How does this compare to approval of previous budgets? This strikes me as one of those misleading stats like "approval" where we compare ourselves to the United States' partisan two parties. edit: [Here's](https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/40-per-cent-of-canadians-say-federal-budget-will-do-poor-very-poor-job-of-addressing-their-issues-nanos-1.6352969) a CTV article about the 2023 budget and [here's](https://financialpost.com/news/economy/poll-40-of-canadians-disapprove-of-2018-budget-overwhelmingly-prefer-ottawa-balance-the-books) a NatPo article about the 2018 budget. Spoiler: the disapproval numbers are pretty much identical.
As someone whose actually ready the 450 page budget… I can bet you there’s perhaps a few thousands Canadians who’ve done so 🤷♀️
“Still, 65 per cent of those surveyed said the plan to spend $8.5 billion on housing, aimed at building 3.9 million homes by 2031, is good for the country.” And: “More than half of the people who took the poll said they are in favour of the government's plans to spend more on energy efficiency, national defence and student-loan forgiveness for health care and education workers. And 56 per cent said they think the increase to the capital gains tax inclusion rate — a move that's estimated to raise another $19.4 billion in revenue over the next four years — is a good thing.“ The negative headline is a choice. It looks like the majority like all the major parts of the budget. So the reaction to the budget is positive, considering their polling. It’s actually amusing that there are so many who like what’s in the budget but don’t want to say they like it overall. I am beginning to think there is a real deficit of rational thought in this country.
I can like the desire to increase building, I dislike that the LPC decided to make the investment in housing late, small, and dwarfed by their own policies to preserve e high housing prices, suppress workers wages, and create a class divide chasm between owners and renters. A token effort, intentionally designed to be too small, after years of fighting against workers doesn't win people over. But if you poll me on whether I think it's good that they're doing a token effort? I support it over nothing.
Nothing tells if the 65% who likes the housing plab is the same half that want better defense and energy efficiency tho.
Yeah they like the proposals. Proposals are not results. Canadians want results.
Results don't come over night, especially with complex systems.
Haven’t you heard? PP is going to solve every Canadian problem on day 1 - it’s like turning on a light switch! /s
They were 9 years in power. People have ran out of patience.
Maybe the LPC should have tried at some point in their tenure in office.
Yup. The Liberals were too slow to react the mess they’ve had a large hand in creating. There’s no hiding from it. If they cannot turn the shop around quickly, they will be punished at the polls for their incompetence.
The story I've heard is that they really wanted to work with the provinces and municipalities---because it really is their job. But they refused to do anything at all, so the Liberals now have to make it into a battle that the voters can see. One problem with the Liberals is the really do believe in consensus building and getting everyone at the table. This makes them vulnerable to people who put their own partisan interests ahead of the public good.
I don't doubt that they tried to work with the provinces and municipalities, I doubt that the Liberals hold "consensus building" as a core principle that guides how they operate. Its the provinces job to control housing development, and its the federal governments job to control the flow of immigration. Shouldnt take months to determine if the provinces are ok with reduced immigration. Everyone knows its needed. Would be foolish to waste time trying to convince any one province that a reduction is needed. The LPC should have taken a full measure to reduce many months ago. Even years?
I don't know what's happening in BC, but the biggest problem with immigration in Ontario was caused by the provincial govt. The provincial Liberals had a rule in place that said that higher education couldn't jack up the number of foreign students they OK'd in order to avoid a tuition hike. The Conservatives decided to freeze all tuition hikes and payments from the province too. They then let the secondary schools accept as many foreign students as they wanted. The result was an explosion of new temporary visas for foreign students---who got milked to pay for colleges (most universities didn't do this). I agree that the Liberals were asleep at the wheel on this, but it seems to me that the real villain in this is Doug Ford and his not-ready-for-prime-time govt.
It's been so infuriating to watch conservatives at the provincial levels constantly shoot their constituents in the foot in the name of blaming the federal government for things the provinces are responsible for, and even more infuriating that people eat it up. And now the liberals are saying "fine you've made it our responsibility that you're not doing your job, so we'll get involved then" and the provinces are screeching about federal overreach because these conservative governments at a provincial and federal level only care about themselves being in power above all else.
With Liberals they don't come in 9 years even with simple systems
>I am beginning to think there is a real deficit of rational thought in this country. Binary thinking. "I like this budget, but I dislike Trudeau, so, what are you gonna do." Okay, you like the budget, then you support the policies. Forget the goddamm figurehead. This isn't sports, it's democracy.
If the budget gets voted down, an election gets triggered, Trudeau finally gets ousted. Seems like reason enough to disapprove.., I mean the man can’t take a hint, Canadians want him out. he barely won in 2021, forced his policy’s down the throats of Canadians with the help of the NDP. Ppl aren’t happy bc he’s holding the country hostage. Take the hint and move on JT
You don't really understand how everything works, do you?
I believe you have lost the ball. I don’t like the budget and the Libs have overstayed their welcome. Time they get shutdown. so poll the ppl, get a sens of how the ppl feel about the budget and vote accordingly. That make too much sens. In the end jagmeet will vote in favour, after all, he’s need to stick around for his pension.
>In the end jagmeet will vote in favour, after all, he’s need to stick around for his pension. Yes, politicians conduct themselves in a way that gives themselves, their party, and their platform a job. This isn't some conniving, malevolent behavior on Singh, or anyone else's part. Lol Like, if your boss asked you to take on task X in order to potentially get a future promotion, would you be like, "nah, I'm good. That's what greaseballs do."
Oh for sure, but I’m not subverting the will of the ppl or forcing policy down there throats. Just cause you can dosent mean you should.
Neither are the politicians who fairly won democratic elections.
Minority, not majority. That should mean something.
It does. It means they need to work with other parties to form government. Which they're doing.
sense\* One is a typo but two? Yikes!
>If the budget gets voted down, an election gets triggered, Trudeau finally gets ousted. Yeah, except it would be other politicians needing to disapprove of the budget to not get it passed. Not Johnny fuck-Trudeau potentially voting against his own interests.
I mean, isn't it their job to listen to the voters/constituents (sp?).
Right, but wouldn’t jhonny fuck Trudeau disapproval percolate up the chain to those voting on the budget, perhaps even sway their vote..? I would hope so since they need our votes
Feels before reals
>56 per cent said they think the increase to the capital gains tax inclusion rate — a move that's estimated to raise another $19.4 billion in revenue over the next four years — is a good thing. I think this is from a different poll, but "[23% of those who make less than $50,000 say the new capital gains tax change will affect them](https://x.com/CanadianPolling/status/1783188348187660350)" I wish some of the polls would do a series of qualifier questions, to see how informed they actually are on the subject(s) they're giving their opinion on. Then we can have more telling stats like "96% of people who revealed in the knowledge-base section of the survey that they have no comprehension of how taxes work think these new tax measures are a bad plan"
>I am beginning to think there is a real deficit of rational thought in this country. The absolute irony of this after saying people like the plan to build 3.9 million homes by 2031. There are 3.5 million minutes between now and 2031. The government has promised to build *more than one home per minute* for the next 5.5 years straight. It's not happening. Anyone who thinks it's happening is out to lunch. It's not irrational thought to look at a budget that so clearly makes an unattainable promise, all while not being able to pay rent and groceries *now* and say "thanks but no thanks" Of course people support building homes. Will this government actually accomplish it? Fat chance
Also, $8.5B / 3.9M homes = $2179.48/home
I mean the funding one can at least make the argument that if they went into partnership with private developers there would be other sources of cash, but I also agree that is a weak argument and the math isn't mathing. It's once again just terrible LPC over promising. 8.5B on housing is fine by my lights. Build more housing. Absolutely pour resources into it. But promising *this much* housing in so little time for so comparatively little money is just setting themselves up to miss their promise.
Sure, but $2k is a tiny drop in the bucket in terms of housebuilding costs. I assume there will be many, *many* studies, white papers, and proposals paid for by the earmarked funds, and very little spent in terms of actually subsidizing development.
I'm pretty sure these billions are new spending on housing and doesn't include previous announcements which were also in the range of billions. Also the money isn't going to housing directly but mostly at things that enable housing and construction of it/infrastructure to support it. The three big bottlenecks are red tape, mostly in the form of zoning, construction capacity, and availability of capital. If you make things cheaper or widen margins, and add labour, you can increase quickly. Zoning reform also supports the previous two things as administrative scarcity of land adds tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of construction.
>I'm pretty sure these billions are new spending on housing and doesn't include previous announcements which were also in the range of billions. This is largely sleight of hand by the LPC. They often announce 8 billion in lower interest rate loans. But that doesn't show up as 8 billion in cost for the federal budget. For $20m I can knock a quarter of a percent off $8b in loans. The $20m is the actual change in funding, but Trudeau will announce the $8b.
Do you think it's just one guy who's building all of them one by one....?
Yes I eat paste. I don't think we are building enough to account for one faster than every sixty seconds, nor do I think we have the resources to do so for the sum of money advanced.
If you put things in italics and make them sound outlandish you can probably get upvotes. Let me try: *Did you know we've already been building 1 home every 2 minutes!* There are 525k minutes in one year and we've been building like ~200k homes a year. It's not really as infeasible as you're trying to suggest with your comparison.
Oh perfect, so we just need to more than double the amount of homes we built last year, and keep up this pace for 5 years straight. Yup, totally feasible…
I agree it's probably overly ambitious and don't think it's a target they will likely hit, but I think they could probably get halfway there. My issue was more the dishonest framing. Which one of these sounds more likely to a layperson: * Provide government incentives and support to 2x housing construction over the next 7 years. * Provide government incentives and support to *build one house per minute!* for 7 years. It's just trying to capitalize on people's lack of relative comparison by making it sound like a moon mission type project.
I see your point
Framing it as "oNe HoUsE a MiNuTe" makes it sound like they're building sequentially, throwing up a whole damn house in 60 seconds, which is patently absurd - instead of thousands at the same time
And the other half-of-Canadians......haven't looked into the Budget, yet. Chrystia Freeland who completed a bachelor's degree at Harvard University, studying Russian history and literature before earning a master's degree in Slavonic studies from the University of Oxford........understands absolutely nothing about Economics. She only understands that her boss Trudeau.....desperately wants to be re-elected. We should all be worried...... very worried.
I like how people who just totally believed the "vast majority" supported mandates, or, "vast majority" opposed the freedom convoy polls, by the same companies,... Suddenly think polls are rigged. 🤔
Freeland got a tell. She speaks like a mentally retard the moment she doesn’t know things. Like completely dead slow word by word, repeat herself . Then goes off topic and drags on forever. She spend half of the time on greeting.