Too bad the 'professional' reporters for the legacy news were too busy trolling for a 'gotcha' that they couldn't be bothered looking into the first realistic proposal for ending the housing crisis.
It's the first thing that shows up for me on cbc, posted 4 hours after your comment. I think this might have been more that it takes time to research, interview, get responses from the opposition and fact check.
But what I'm excited about is a major party actually saying that the govt can actually solve the housing crisis, a reference to when the govt did this in the past, and describes a practical way of doing it.
If we won't reward a party that actually comes up with a plan because we don't trust them, when is any party going to actually do it?
And don't forget, Trudeau actually did do some of the things he promised---like legalizing cannabis. And that was something that I heard nothing but hand-wringing about from other politicians my entire life!
You make fair points about housing and cannabis legalization. The Liberals do occasionally follow through on promises, especially when they align with both political opportunity and public pressure.
However, electoral reform is more fundamental than any single policy area. When Liberals promised that 2015 would be "the last election under first-past-the-post", they weren't just offering another policy - they were promising to fix the democratic foundation upon which all other policies rest. According to the opposition, Trudeau repeated this commitment to "make every vote count" more than 1,800 times, clearly understanding how much it resonated with voters.
This matters because in a proper democracy, citizens are entitled to meaningful representation. A housing program (however needed) can be implemented and cancelled with each election cycle under our current system - what experts call policy lurch. But proportional representation would fundamentally reshape how all policies are developed, ensuring they better reflect what Canadians actually vote for.
I'm not saying we should dismiss other policies - housing is critically important. But it's worth noting that the same party repeatedly promising electoral reform for over a century (since Mackenzie King in 1919) while never delivering it suggests a deeply entrenched pattern that voters should question.
I'm so fucking jazzed about this. This is what I've been going on about for years. It's such an obvious part of the solution. I'll wait to see if they can pull it off, but everything I've seen so far is fantastic.
It’s not that simple though. Sure, they can buy new properties, but they can only buy so much. We’re talking 500k new homes per year.
You could aggressively tax people who own multiple homes, but it doesn’t address the fact that there’s a clear lack of housing for the population. Property investors are just one part of the equation.
And if the rich does snag up a lot of these units, we can then talk about taxing these people, or perhaps limiting purchases of affordable houses only to first-time buyers or low-to-medium income households, creating a sort of loose air gap between the two markets (luxury and affordable). In any case, your worries are without solutions, but those houses need to be built regardless.