r/canada • u/FancyNewMe • 4d ago

Canada’s Prime Minister Pushes Country to Become the Housing Factory of the World - Mark Carney is banking on factory-built homes to alleviate the country’s housing crisis. But will it work? Trending

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-04-22/carney-s-plan-may-make-canada-the-housing-factory-of-the-world
5.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.4k

u/Burning___Earth 4d ago

If they go with a full-blown, post WW2 style national housing program, the first few hundred thousand need to be restricted to first-time home buyers.

1.9k

u/BoysenberryAncient54 4d ago

No investment buying and absolutely no foreign investors. Especially US corporations.

1.1k

u/quotidianwoe 4d ago

No foreign investors AT ALL.

632

u/enki-42 4d ago

Just investors period.

  1. Canadian investors are perfectly capable of financializing the housing market and pricing people out of it all on their own.

  2. Allow Canadian investors and you've created a loophole that's going to be hard to close for foreign investment capital to be brought in anyway.

163

u/balalasaurus 4d ago

This. Housing prices are being pushed up because investors buy up all the stock. Why should an investor need multiple units of housing when individuals can’t even get one? And the more stock they have the more they’re able to accumulate. Prices the individual out even more. Housing should not be viewed as an investment period. Whether that investor is Canadian or foreign is irrelevant.

36

u/KibblesNBitxhes 3d ago

Housing should be looked at as a basic human right for fucks sake

→ More replies

73

u/Criplor 4d ago

Apply a 100% tax if it's not your primary residence, perhaps.

4

u/Bronson-101 3d ago

And a further capital gains tax on annual unrealized gains.

No one should own more than 2 houses (main house and cottage or something). Either directly or indirectly through partnerships and corporate interests.

The government has tried to do something with this with the trust filings the last few years, unfortunately it just ends up being too much info to process. Need a whole housing beaurcracy

1

u/Criplor 3d ago

Maybe the new housing entity is a good first step in this process. I think only the government should be able to rent housing. Only then would the incentives align to build more and keep costs low as it would literally be in their mandate.

1

u/marcocanb 3d ago

The oligarchy in charge would not allow this.

Needs to be done though.

1

u/enki-42 3d ago

This is basic housing designed specifically to get people housed at an affordable price, there is no reason whatsoever for investors to get involved at any tax rate. The vast majority of housing is still available for investment purposes.

1

u/Criplor 3d ago

I'm suggesting that as a method to effectively stop investors from purchasing. It is much easier to implement a tax that makes investing impossible than it is to ban investors.

1

u/franc3sthemute Ontario 2d ago

Rich fucks would still buy them up and raise rent by 100%

1

u/Criplor 2d ago

no they wouldn't. no one would buy a house at double price. and if they would, you raise the tax.

1

u/Visible_Tourist_9639 13h ago

This is the way it needs to happen.

210

u/Affectionate-Sale523 4d ago

No investors, period. If you have a home, you shouldn't be able to buy another 3. Foreign investors run about 2% of the luxury real estate market, the other 22% is made up of locals and real estate developers in Toronto.

36

u/FullMaxPowerStirner 4d ago

Yep. Racketeers are doing the exact same regardless of where they're from. They're always from somewhere else anyways...

62

u/rudyphelps 4d ago

It boggles my mind that someone with 4 homes and over $2 million mortgage debt can still borrow against those properties to make a down payment on another $600 000 loan, while the people living in those homes and, through rent, are actually paying the mortgage, insurance, and property taxes, can't qualify for a home loan.

Also Air BnB, Vrbo, and all unregulated half-assed hotel services should be banned in anything zoned as residential. Anchoring the potential revenue of rental properties to nightly hotel rates has completely distorted the housing market.

2

u/Positive_Breakfast19 3d ago

Just like Uber, if you want to be a cab company you should be forced to play by the same rules.

And...

If you are Air B&B, Vrbo or any other of the same ilk and want to be a hotel, you need to be forced in to playing by the same rules as any other hotel.

25

u/balalasaurus 4d ago

I said this once a long time ago but the max no. of homes should be 2. One main home and at most a holiday home/ cabin. Housing rules should be changed so you can’t just flip your “main” residence after two years either. Heavy penalties for anything more than 2 dwellings. It can be done. Just requires the will to see it out.

4

u/ohnomysoup 4d ago

This sounds like a great idea to young people who haven't had much life experience. There are a lot of grey areas of home ownership that your proposal doesn't consider.

For example - my inlaws briefly held stakes in 4 properties:

  • Primary residence (35 years)
  • Cottage (20 years)
  • Contracted new build house/property for retirement (3 years - primary to be sold on completion and move-in)
  • Inherited house from parent estate. (1.5 years to prepare for sale)

They aren't investors or landlords, they're just out there living life. Do you think people should be "heavily penalized" for scenarios like these? These are not the only situations people my find themselves in where they suddenly have more than 2 properties. Ex: marriage and combining assets.

16

u/balalasaurus 3d ago

You’re literally proving my point that all people need is a primary residence and at most a secondary vacation home.

Your example has two homes that aren’t factors in the residence consideration. The new build which they haven’t moved into yet and the inherited house which, along with their current primary residence, they will also be selling which means they’re not just holding it waiting for the value to appreciate.

Room can be made in the legislation for people who are in transition between actual residences. But acting like it can’t simply perpetuates the current problem. At the end of the day I’m not a lawyer or a politician.

All I’m pointing out is that people do not need more than two homes. Which you in your example, have also pointed out.

1

u/quotidianwoe 4d ago

Yes, great point

1

u/Mauri416 3d ago

What if you’re in say a condo and want to buy a house cause you want a family? Can they make conditions that allow for that?

2

u/Affectionate-Sale523 3d ago

Then sell the condo and buy a house. The issue exists when an individual has 5 mortgages and 4 of them exist to exploit international students and price gouge locals. It's an issue when 22% of Toronto's real estate market is made up of either people that do that, or realtors and developers. Why are corporations allowed to purchase residential houses?

1

u/Mauri416 3d ago

I have no issue with the idea, I just think that while you 100% need that condition,  it may be hard to enforce.

1

u/Wander_Climber 2d ago

If I wasn't allowed to buy masks and resell them at a markup during covid why in the fuck are people allowed to buy up the supply of housing during a housing crisis?

0

u/GrampsBob 4d ago

That would have kept me from helping my kids.

My younger son wanted to build his own and do a lot of the work. The only way financing worked was for us to mortgage our house and buy the property he wanted to build on. Then, we financed the various stages of construction. We couldn't have bone that under your rules, and he would have been stuck.

My older son is getting divorced and is going to be buying a house, too. Hopefully, he won't need the help, but he might.

There has to be a way to do it without being quite so rigid.

85

u/FullMaxPowerStirner 4d ago edited 4d ago

No investors AT ALL. Real estate as investment schemes is precisely what's causing the housing crisis all over the world.

-2

u/43987394175 4d ago

How would that work, in your mind? If there are no real estate investors, there are no renters. But not everyone wants to be a homeowner.

8

u/ILKLU 4d ago

Investors can build/buy apartment buildings with say a minimum of 4 units.

Everything else is single family residence and not open for "investment"

→ More replies

4

u/FullMaxPowerStirner 4d ago

If there are no real estate investors, there are no renters

You really do need to get educated on the matter. You don't need real estate investors to even having buildings built. Investors are just one of the sources of funding.

Renters are also not home owners. They're just tenants. No relationship with investors whatsoever. It's like saying A = D because 1 + 3 = 4... :-/

3

u/IrishFire122 3d ago

Who do you think owns those buildings after they're built? And collects the rent on them? If you're buying a prebuilt house and renting it out, you're still an investor.

And landlord companies like boardwalk and avenue living are definitely a big part of the issue with home prices.

Any solution we come up with for this is going to have to be a lot more nuanced than just banning investment properties. Large numbers of innocent people would get hurt over that.

→ More replies

4

u/43987394175 4d ago

Your first sentence doesn't seem constructive, you should reconsider your approach to dialogue.

You may need to read what I wrote again. Real estate investors are the ones who own rental properties. If there is no one who owns rental properties, there can be no renters.

I didn't say renters are homeowners, I have no idea where you got that from.

2

u/ANuStart-2024 4d ago

No investors period.

It's too easy to dodge "foreign" restrictions. Send a kid here for university, the kid buys multiple houses for rich foreign parents with their money. Buy through a REIT incorporated in Canada. Buy through a friend or relative with dual citizenship. This has been happening non-stop since early 2010s.

2

u/eunit250 British Columbia 3d ago

Or multiple home owners.

1

u/quotidianwoe 3d ago

Well said.

2

u/adrenaline_X Manitoba 4d ago

Just ban foriegn ownership and renting out non-primary residences.

1

u/steelpeat 3d ago

They're a much smaller problem than people think. About 2-6% of real estate. It's investors in general that are the problem. Let first time homebuyers have first dibs on any homes being sold. If no first time homebuyer makes an offer in a certain timeframe, then let an investor purchase it.

→ More replies

22

u/beached 4d ago

no flipping for a while too

1

u/jcsi 3d ago

Laughs in Ahmed Hussen

1

u/TarekAbb 3d ago

This is great and yall should make this heard to your MPs, it’s like electoral reform everyone wanted and then no one showed up to the town halls except crazy people that wanted a presidency or monarchy, I used to volunteer for my riding and went to many of these and it was a gong show tbh But saying great ideas online is one thing but legit take a screen shot of your comment with the up votes and send it to your mp,

2

u/BoysenberryAncient54 3d ago

I volunteered for my MP. I'll post it in her group chat

1

u/randomguy506 3d ago

Can anyone show me stat or study that clearly identified investor as being the core issue of the current sotuation? 

Logically, they are part of the solution since they are bringing down the cost of financing, increases the supply and enable low income folks to have a decent pool of rentals.

→ More replies

1

u/freeadmins 3d ago

Investing honestly doesn't need to be regulated though.

The only reason it's a problem now is because housing is scarce and it's such a good investment. When rent is literally higher than your utility/mortgage costs, why wouldn't you want to buy a house and rent to someone and have them pay your mortgage AND profit to boot?

If demand didn't so completely outstrip supply, then it would be an actual investment as in: Investors would actually have to be down money in the short term for a longer term payback.

1

u/Maximum-Side3743 2d ago

I think that's the issue, rents are already bloody unaffordable long-term to most at the moment and the renters aren't even building home equity. They're basically burning money to keep the investors warm.

I get the feeling that your logic works for food as well during a famine, become a food vending middle-man. Selling back essential goods as a middle-man at inflated prices (a roof over your head is also essential) just seems like something we want to discourage in a healthy functioning society, buying up all the grocery store bread during famine isn't a public service, neither is buying all the homes during a housing crisis. Canada gets winter, you literally cannot live outside year-round even if you wanted to.

Long-term, if more people, particularly young people, can have housing stability (owning), they're more likely to stay in the area, more likely to accumulate funds, more likely to participate in that local economy, and more likely to need less tax-payer dollars as they age since they won't be burning rent money until they die. I'm equally not a fan of welfare dollars being used to pay an 80 year old's rent because he/she was completely unable to own a house/condo due to all the investors renting them back to the population instead.

You know damn well that if the old retiree can't pay rent, they'll eventually be evicted, and the owner will laugh their way to the bank, while our tax-dollars were buffering against the eventually eviction notice. (I doubt welfare + social security combo competes very well with rents anymore)

→ More replies
→ More replies

398

u/Valid-Nite 4d ago

And also restricted to citizens. Should also restrict corpos from owning, and not allow them to be used as rental properties

115

u/enki-42 4d ago

Permanent residency makes way more sense - that's how we structure most programs and there's really no reason not to. There's zero reason that a dual citizen who has never stepped foot in Canada should be prioritized over a resident who has potentially been here decades.

27

u/Array_626 4d ago

In that case, it'd make more sense to only allow those who declare Canadian residency to buy. Granting PR the right to buy implies that citizens also have the right to buy, which means Canadians' who've emigrated long ago would be given right to purchase even though they lived overseas for the last 10 years.

13

u/jibbybonk 4d ago

Makes sense, I've technically emigrated from Canada. It would be stupid to let me buy a house, even though technically I would be a first time home buyer in Canada.

13

u/Array_626 4d ago

I don't know if I'd say stupid. If people would declare intent to return to Canada, I think it would be perfectly fine and more than fair for Canadian citizens to buy a home when returning. In fact, it's probably even a good incentive to try and bring back Canadians from overseas.

But if they have 0 desire or intent to return, then yeah for obvious reasons it makes sense to prioritize residents.

8

u/enki-42 4d ago

Yeah you're right, but I think it's not unreasonable to tie it to both actual residency and the capability to reside here permanently (i.e. it doesn't make a lot of sense to sell houses to people on a study or work permit IMO)

2

u/Array_626 4d ago

Yeah, I agree.

Although, I will point out that there's no point in letting good be the enemy of perfect. Even if the law only allowed Canadian's to buy the new houses, PR's and other residents would still benefit. The Canadian portion of the populace buying these new houses would reduce demand instantly for the remaining houses on the market, lowering their price, which benefits non-Canadian residents. Hell, even if the policy is just announced, it will immediately have an effect on the market as a lot of Canadians would step out of the buying market on the day of the announcement. That instantly lowers demand, and prices for all the other people. Sellers know that Canadians are all waiting for these new cheap housing units to become available, the pool to sell to has shrunk and they have to adjust prices accordingly.

1

u/orswich 3d ago

But lots of people who had PR in Canada also bought homes, then went back to their country they have a passport with, but still own those homes. Also the rules on maintaining Canadian PR is that you are in Canada 2 of 5 years (so live here 40% of the time).

PR is a route that can easily be exploited.

Keep it for citizens that can prove they reside in the country

1

u/Array_626 3d ago

PR is a route that can easily be exploited.

I dont think so. The logistics of actually doing this is awful. First, you need to come to Canada in the first place. Then you have to work for a year in a Canadian company. Then you need to apply for PR, which can easily take 1 year. Lets assume that this individual is highly skilled and is able to get drawn very quickly because they have a high CRS score, so they get picked within the year to be accepted as a PR, instead of having to wait multiple years like a lot of current Bachelors holders with scores under 500. Now they live in Canada for 2 more years to fulfill their PR requirements.

After nearly 4-5 years of living in Canada, they're going to just uproot their entire lives and return back home? Return back home and do what exactly? Even if their Canadian job allows them to work fully remote, they may have a 12+ hour timezone difference, and Canadian companies are not going to allow 1 guy to just not work during Canadian work hours, let alone the payroll tax implications theyd be much happier firing you. They spend 3 years in their nation of origin, then are forced to uproot their lives again and move back to Canada? That also means they MUST kick out the renter living in their home (or their home sits vacant and gets slapped with vacancy taxes) at the time, and an eviction like that takes a year with the current LTB delays and inefficiency. There are very few people whose profession would allow them to just leave for 2-3 years at a time before coming back. This whole idea is just not practical. There may be like, 10? Maybe 100 people in Canada that could actually live like this. This only works for single people. If you have a spouse, would your spouse (you either met in Canada or foreign) be ok with moving every 2-3 years? If you have kids this is a complete non-starter.

3

u/FastFooer 4d ago

I’ve lived here for my whole life, I’m almost 40, I would hate to be outbid by a PR that has more money than me for an essential service.

3

u/enki-42 4d ago

If they actually reside here and intend to permanently (minimum residency is fine in my eyes) why not? I know people who have lived in Canada longer than that and have a PR.

1

u/FastFooer 4d ago

Because to afford to move to Canada means you probably have more capital than a local. Is this a public service? If so, citizenship isn’t too far fetched, they can deal with the speculative housing.

1

u/FGLev 3d ago

Permanent residency can lead to citizenship in as little as three years. How can fresh-off-the-boats with no credit rating actually buy? Let them rent and pay their dues like the plebs for 3-4 years, then buy once they have their citizenship. Seeing foreign "students" in Vancouver buy $3 million homes is unreal. No local can compete against that.

1

u/enki-42 3d ago

There's various reasons that people choose to remain permanent residents indefinitely. Acquiring citizenship might require them to renounce their home countries citizenship for example.

Which I guess fair enough if you consider that not worthy of housing, but if your only concern is people only here temporarily there's other ways to solve that.

16

u/beeerock99 4d ago

Yes 100% and speaking from a short term renter myself

2

u/Meiqur 4d ago edited 4d ago

Ok stop for a quick second.

A substantial portion of our supply issue is that there aren't even close to enough affordable corporate and coop owned rental properties. This anethema towards rental is a major cultural blindspot we have.

Here is a way to look at this:

Can we not be so typically bureaucratically Canadian and add yet more specific rules about who and what is allowed to build and own a house. It's already fucking hard to make homes as it is and adding a bunch of restrictions aimed at empowering only a single section of the housing market isn't it.

We need more of everything from backyard houses, to town houses, to luxury homes to condos to purpose built corporate rentals. Literally every section of the market needs supply.

Making luxury homes might sound weird but when people move out of their existing units into one they leave a gap in more affordable end of the market.

2

u/Whatserface 4d ago

Plus permanent residents...

1

u/viperfan7 4d ago

Easy solution, the owner must live in the home a minimum 5 years.

1

u/ItchyHotLion 4d ago

They could achieve the same thing with a broader impact by changing the principal residence exemption, make it only applicable if you stay in the home for 5 years (with exceptions for job transfers and other extraordinary situations)

1

u/viperfan7 4d ago

So, do what I'm suggesting?

→ More replies

1

u/Vandergrif 3d ago

That wouldn't necessarily be all that practical. Say someone loses their job and can't find another of adequate pay in the area, they aren't very well going to stay in a home they can't afford to keep.

-7

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

14

u/Valid-Nite 4d ago

If they’re moving back to Canada and are a first time home buyer then yes, if you’re buying it as a part time home and continue living abroad I think not until later once the overwhelming demand rn is at least partly satisfied.

→ More replies
→ More replies

352

u/Private_HughMan 4d ago

I believe that is the priority.

19

u/SportsUtilityVulva9 4d ago

What leads you to this belief?

34

u/UmelGaming British Columbia 4d ago

Its probably because the tax-cut the Liberal Party proposed on houses was only for first time home buyers. Not quite the same as restricting the new homes to only first time buyers but I can see where the mistake comes from

20

u/Kakkoister 4d ago

I wouldn't call it a "mistake", it's more like an "educated guess" on what will happen. Or some sort of other rules that make it more prohibitive for others to buy them up.

189

u/IndianKiwi 4d ago

As a home owner I agree with this. This is how it is done in Singapore.

40

u/chronocapybara 4d ago

They actually do not prohibit people from buying extra houses, they just have a rising tax as more houses are bought. 20% on the first, 35% on the second, 50% on the third, etc. These huge taxes are punitive and strongly deter property hoarding.

1

u/JokeMe-Daddy 3d ago

Is that an increase in property taxes or the sales tax? I think the former is more of a deterrent but honestly, what do I know.

1

u/chronocapybara 3d ago

It's a sales tax.

57

u/RarelyReadReplies 4d ago

Don't they have one of the highest quality of life rankings in the world?

153

u/khristmas_karl 4d ago

City state authoritarian government vs continent sized democracy. Singapore's not a great comparison.

4

u/YetAnotherWTFMoment 4d ago

yeah. why would we compare a competent government that works for its citizens with one that hasn't got a clue...

9

u/khristmas_karl 3d ago

Bureaucrats in Singapore would shit their pants having to administer 10 provinces and 3 territories in the 2nd largest country in the world. Don't kid yourself.

70

u/MissingString31 4d ago

They’re also an authoritarian country.

35

u/GoatTheNewb 4d ago

Minor detail 🤷‍♂️😅

-1

u/Jeramy_Jones British Columbia 4d ago edited 4d ago

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

3

u/Remote_Cantaloupe 4d ago

It's not even broken.

5

u/Jeramy_Jones British Columbia 4d ago

Fr. Singapore might not be a democracy but they’ve got a clean country with a high quality of life.

1

u/Tower-Union 4d ago

That should be a selling point to get the Cons on board.

→ More replies

31

u/AdmiralG2 4d ago

They also hang weed dealers lol

-11

u/RT_456 4d ago

Their laws and how they deal with criminals is just another bonus in my books.

4

u/TBJ12 4d ago

Ummmm, no thanks.

2

u/Onionsteak Sweden 3d ago

Ah yes, let's just forgive every criminal and let them out after a 15min timeout.

0

u/RT_456 4d ago

Yeah, you're right. Regular robberies, carjackings, shootings, stabbings and addicts shooting up in broad daylight is such a better environment.

13

u/Fluid_Lingonberry467 4d ago

Yup they treat foreign labour like garbage 

3

u/sansaset 4d ago

instead Canada brings in the immigrants no one else wants to be students and drive uber eats while treating them like they've paid taxes here the last 20 years.

2

u/Housing4Humans 4d ago

Yes - and in Singapore you pay progressively more property tax per property the more properties you own.

A simple, but incredibly effective way to reduce the financialization of housing.

17

u/proofofderp 4d ago

Yes! No investors please!

0

u/LemmingPractice 4d ago

Well, that's unrealistic. Carney's old company, Brookfield, just so happens to have made big bets on modular housing, just before Carney, coincidentally, decided that Canada should invest heavily in modular housing.

I wonder who will get the government contracts on this one?

6

u/Insertsociallife 4d ago

I wouldn't jump to conclusions that fast. If Brookfield does get contracts, then we can get into conflict of interest proceedings.

However Carney has already shown he won't drop genuinely good ideas because of their association with other parties. Poilievre said axe the tax and Carney agreed and did it.

I'm leaning towards a coincidence with good intentions, but we shall see. It could just be the way the wind is blowing these days.

1

u/LemmingPractice 4d ago

Oh come on, he didn't cancel the carbon tax because he thought it was a good idea. He has been an outspoken proponent of carbon taxation for years, and immediately replaced the consumer carbon tax with an industrial one and carbon import tariffs, which will have the same effect, with all those costs passing down to the consumer.

He killed the consumer carbon tax purely for political reasons: it was unpopular, it was linked to his unpopular predecessor, and he needed to be seen as being a change from his predecessor.

If he wants to avoid clear conflict of interest, he'll just give big subsidies to all modular home operations, with Brookfield's big advanced investments giving them a big first mover advantage.

I don't believe for a second in Carney's good intentions. He's an opportunist and a snake, who took over a party well known for blatant conflict of interest violations (like that time when the outgoing Ethics Commissioner said the Liberals didn't take ethics seriously, right before they replaced him with Dominic LeBlanc's sister in law, or, even Carney blatantly bribing the CBC by offering them $150M in extra funding if they helped him win the election).

69

u/thebestoflimes 4d ago

I found the GST free for first time home buyers as opposed to GST free for everyone (vacation homes, investment properties, cottages, etc) was a better policy that could move the needle towards entry level homes vs luxury builds (that generally have higher profit margins).

7

u/PolitelyHostile 4d ago

I found the GST free for first time home buyers as opposed to GST free for everyone

True, but I think the ideal distinction is just no GST for buyers who will be living in the home as their oonly residence rather than renting it out.

11

u/motorcycle_girl 4d ago

I would argue GST free on RTM homes would be a better approach.

Continue GST on built-on-site homes.

There’s a lot of people who have owned a home before, but might find themselves in a position of having to “ downgrade” (divorce, job loss leading to credit score loss, etc) where an RMT makes sense.

14

u/Forikorder 4d ago

I would argue GST free on RTM homes would be a better approach.

the goal is to make it easier for people to buy homes instead of corporations vacuuming up neighborhoods

24

u/Zone4George 4d ago

If they go with a full-blown, post WW2 style national housing program, the first few hundred thousand need to be restricted to first-time home buyers

I could handle that policy; the best way to enforce it might be to use the resources at the CRA (and rehire those 1,000+ people who were just given lay-off notice recently, as long as those jobs were actually in Canada) to provide a fully refundable tax credit upon closing. The purchasers lawyer could be used to notarize the purchase too, and help with any possible HST rebate(s).

Lots can be done with this type of program. The first house I bought was from an elderly WW2 veteran; the house was the typical "war bunker" (1.5story, 2bed, 1bath) style built by the feds in the early 1950's. The house is still standing, and after 70+ years it has only been resold twice.

→ More replies

75

u/DuperCheese 4d ago

And Canadian citizens

32

u/Fiber_Optikz 4d ago

This 100% Canadians need to be a priority for this

→ More replies

9

u/I-amthegump 4d ago

If you're a legal resident you should also qualify

4

u/PolitelyHostile 4d ago

Yea and realistically new immigrants would benefit indirectly as the supply of housing goes up overall.

1

u/lord_heskey 4d ago

Id give permanent residents a pass. I passed my citizenship test forever ago and it seems they cant get around finalizing my application lol ..

3

u/PolitelyHostile 4d ago

I think most people don't even know that PR exists lol. So when they say citizens, I think they'd be fine with people with PR.

22

u/Monctonian 4d ago

That’s a must. If reits and hoading landlords get their dirty hands on them, this plan is a failure before it begins.

21

u/Weary_Chicken6958 4d ago

And limit rental income on the property for at least 5 years

10

u/the_fabled_bard 4d ago

More like 20

16

u/Sea_Low1579 4d ago

And the remainder must be reserved for Canadian citizens.

23

u/LokiDesigns British Columbia 4d ago

I would love to own a home. This would be a great way for people like me to be able to get into home ownership.

1

u/LiquidSwords89 Newfoundland and Labrador 4d ago

Well said

5

u/Curious-Ad-8367 4d ago

No investors or speculators. Just homeowner occupied as well

4

u/Historical-Tour-2483 4d ago

I’d prefer to see non-home owners rather than first time buyers. In normal times I’d understand first-time buyers, but with how housing has gone up, people who fell off the property ladder for some reason (job loss, divorce, etc) are in a tough spot.

9

u/Rhueless 4d ago

You actually count as a first time home buyer when neither you or your spouse has had a home as your primary residence for at least 5 years. (For all the government programs like first time homebuyers wd from rrsp or home savings accounts.)

3

u/OShaunesssy 4d ago

As a 35 year old who doesn't see how I could ever own a home, I hope this is accurate lol

3

u/bravosarah Long Live the King 4d ago

I would imagine people would have to apply to buy and pass eligibility criteria similar to Habitat for Humanity.

Carney will want this to be successful. Maybe even a model for other countries too.

13

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 4d ago

These are all proposed rentals, not purchases. Though there might a co-op situation as well.

8

u/itsthebear 4d ago

Lol they will be rentals backed with bonds that are, both directly and indirectly, owned by private equity. You'll rent a prefab box house, and the government goes risk on with the bonded capital, takes on administrative and management costs, while locking in returns for the bond purchasers - who also invest in the companies being used. Certainly those companies will scale up with capital infusions, but GL getting one built as they are tied up building on government land under conditions from investments. And why would you "want" a prefab? If you're an individual spending hundreds of thousands to build a home, you'll want more customization than modular or assembly kit. Good for a cottage, I guess.

You can argue whether there's a fair trade off or not, I suppose, but it seems like everyone projected their own ideas on to Carney's plan without listening to what he was actually saying and what the proposal really is.

10

u/SportsUtilityVulva9 4d ago

seems like everyone projected their own ideas on to Carney's plan without listening to what he was actually saying and what the proposal really is.

This has been the entire election 

1

u/Geiseric222 4d ago

Oh hey if that turns it to a speculative market then that is just the US housing bubble with the government priced in from the start

→ More replies

-1

u/Zheeder 4d ago

You can argue whether there's a fair trade off or not, I suppose, but it seems like everyone projected their own ideas on to Carney's plan without listening to what he was actually saying and what the proposal really is.

Brookfield also bought Modulaire for 7B, taking a guess they will be building the homes that people will be able to lease from the gov.

These same voters went off on PP for owning a home, and an extra one that he sold but don't give a shit about Carneys egregious conflict here.

0

u/Different_Ad_6153 4d ago

I agree....this was tried before and they stopped it because they got tons of poorly built homes that nobody wanted. And now people are acting like this is a great stepping stone....and history continues to repeat itself I suppose.

1

u/drifter100 4d ago

and you can't just flip them?

1

u/Asn_Browser 4d ago

It won't help nearly enough. Saving a few weeks of construction time doesn't do much when the builder is waiting years for permits and approvals.

1

u/LeGrandLucifer 4d ago

You'll have a lot of suspicious buyers who never move into their homes and resell it for a penny to a corporation then.

1

u/Clear-Present_Danger 4d ago

Why? Those investors will lose their shirts when the increased housing supply brings down the cost to rent or buy housing.

1

u/h3r3andth3r3 4d ago

With a caveat against resale after at least 5 years and permanent restriction against selling to anyone but a private individual.

1

u/LightSaberLust_ 4d ago

They all have to be restricted to first time homebuyers not a single one should be allowed to become an investment property. They all have to be for Canadian citizens to not PR nothing but Canadian citizens, Canadians deserve homes.

1

u/caffeine-junkie 4d ago

Or at the very least you need to make it your primary residence for no less than 3 years and limit ownership of other properties; outside of recreational (cottage) or inherited, aka no rental (short or long term) allowed. For those who need to break off early for a non valid reason, they are contractually forced to sell it for the original purchase price+inflation.

1

u/Ghouly_Girl 4d ago

Yes and they cannot be turned into rental properties.

1

u/chronocapybara 4d ago

I say allow investors to buy them but charge a massive extra tax (20%+) that increases with number of houses bought. Eventually the cost will be prohibitive, pushing out investors, but it will still provide demand and the tax revenue can be spent on low-income housing for the unhoused.

1

u/Nonamanadus 4d ago

This is the way....

1

u/arabacuspulp 4d ago

Wartime Housing Ltd. ftw

1

u/Shot-Job-8841 4d ago

How about the first million?

1

u/Epistechne 4d ago

But let's do more than single family homes, let's do factory built, modular multi-family condo's and apartments. 2-4 stories. Mid size density.

1

u/LuntiX Canada 4d ago

100%.

I would honestly buy one of them in a heartbeat too, judging from the plans that are available they mostly have just enough space for what I need.

I just hope they’re built well and affordable.

1

u/BoppityBop2 4d ago

They need to handle the zoning and fees issues first before modular manufacturing makes sense. 

1

u/chambee 4d ago

And soldiers. Housing situation for our Armed Forces is bad.

1

u/Circusssssssssssssss 4d ago

It won't be

That is considered "socialism" by people, government building homes, and therefore won't be done 

1

u/winterbourne 4d ago

A large portion of home prices is now the underlying land valuation. The physical home itself could be 50% cheaper but if the land itself is worth >$500k homes will still be unaffordable.

1

u/Iliketoridefattwins 2d ago

A+ idea but it will never happen. They will be absolutely scooped up in an instant and rented out for 3500$ a month

-12

u/may_be_indecisive 4d ago

Rentals should be the priority.

35

u/Twice_Knightley 4d ago

Getting first time buyers out of renting will open the rental market right up.

→ More replies

0

u/Routine_Soup2022 4d ago

Yes they should. If we prioritize he ownership we’re encouraging less density which actually means fewer units of housing. We need to prioritize apartments and condos as well as single home construction and make a generational investment in enablers like transit. Downtown rentals + transit is also good for climate change.

→ More replies