In addition to donations to Gen. Squeeze, what else can we do? Does Gen. Squeeze offer a guide on what ordinary citizens can do? We can write to our MPs or call them but how can we apply any pressure on them?
Yes, join gensqueese in supporting federal bill M-86! The vote will be NEXT WEEK! Call and leave a message for your MP to vote for bill M-86 to form a citizens' assembly on election reform. Right now hundreds of calls are being made to Liberal and Cons MPs to ask them to vote FOR this private members' bill (other parties already support it). See fairvote.ca for how to join in to multiply your voice, and read more detail! I don't know if anyone reached out directly to 'supporters' of gensqueeze about this... but I hope so!
For undecided MPs, hearing from constituents matters the most.
Just yesterday, another Conservative MP said that she will be voting for it, and that her position had changed as a result of a meeting with constituents.
A Liberal MP who has been a long-time opponent told constituents who have been canvassing and phoning supporters in his riding:
“I'm in a different place now than I've been for the last several years. I can see that this is a sticky issue that has staying power and has only been growing year after year..."
In the last two weeks, volunteers have placed more than 15,000 phone calls in the phone bank, asking supporters to call their MPs now.
Alas... this motion was voted down, so the wait for a fairer proportional representation system continues. But as Max Fawcett writes for the National Observer "that doesn’t mean electoral reform is dead — or that it couldn’t still happen before the next election." Let's hope he's right!
Hi Nauman - thanks for offering to lend a hand! We've actually been doing some behind the scenes musing about how we could support keen members of our community to engage with media, public officials etc, so we'd welcome your thoughts on what would be of assistance (and others please jump in too!).
Writing your elected reps does apply some pressure by showing them that Gen Squeeze is not alone in calling for generationally fairer budgets - others support this goal as well! We would certainly encourage you to share our budget recommendations now - and once budgets are released, our reviews of planned spending. All of these materials will be available on this page: https://www.gensqueeze.ca/2024_budget_season.
From our behind-the-scenes engagement efforts, we understand that there's still a window of opportunity to influence the federal budget. This means that you can still help us push the Generational Fairness Task Force ask across the finish line by bringing this action to the attention of your MP. You can find contact info for all MPs here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/search. We'd encourage you to copy your letter to the Ministers of Finance, Treasury Board, Labour, Families & Children. And if you haven't yet, don't forget to sign up on our Task Force page: https://www.gensqueeze.ca/generational_fairness_task_force
There are people with a *huge* economic interest in conflating attitudes towards population growth with attitudes towards immigration, and the normal aging that happens in a stable population with 'demographic collapse'. Canada very clearly does not need 500k permanent immigrants a year--more people than babies have ever been born in a single year--just to combat aging or low birth rates. In the long run, Canada could accommodate some immigration without significant population growth and yet opposition to growth (which as you note is more redistributive than beneficial) gets framed as synonymous with anti-immigrant sentiment.
Coupled with restrictions on urban growth, it's hard to be told there's no space for previously-normal homes even as there is space to triple the population. And, despite some amount of blind faith that density will reduce car-dependence, there's not a strong association in a North American context and many other factors go into walkable communities. There's a lot of effort to conflate the things that density definitely does (use less land) with things that have more indirect associations (like walkability, and that because it makes housing more expensive people have smaller homes). You're not necessarily getting worse housing in exchange for livability or sustainability, sometimes you are just getting worse housing. That risk increases when you are in a desperate race to cram housing anywhere it will fit to accommodate growth.
Glad to hear that you'll be on the call Urich! Always great to see you. We didn't attend the convention, but are looking forward to seeing how the outcomes feed into the still upcoming ON budget. We've done some engagement with Ministerial offices on health and housing, so we know that there's still a great deal more work to do when it comes to building a generationally fair province.
After the Ontario government’s scrapping of rent controls (which only exacerbates the affordability crisis) and the underfunding of universities and health care have they demonstrated any interest in hearing from the grassroots organizations such as gen squeeze? Have they shown any receptiveness for your concerns?
Ontario currently isn't the easiest jurisdiction to get traction, and there are certainly places where the provincial government isn't following our evidence-based solutions. But we have found some entry points to bring forward the importance of applying a generational lens to policy design. Notably, we've met with provincial officials and elected reps on our work with Get Well Canada and the importance of investing in the building blocks of a healthy society as urgently as medical care. And we've met with a range of provincial officials on housing, and the need to look at more than housing supply to address harmful unaffordability (as was just confirmed AGAIN in this report: https://chec-ccrl.ca/rethinking-canadas-target-for-5-8-million-new-homes-by-2030/). We also don't confine our efforts to grow understanding of generational tensions to current (provincial or federal) governments - we've met with a number of Ontario MPPs from other parties as well.
Your efforts are admirable. Thank you for answering Andrea. I asked my original question to gain an understanding of how grassroots organizations are received by different governments in the federal and provincial space. It’s good to see that you can still find some common ground with politicians across the political spectrum in order to do what we all want: improve the lives of Canadians.
Hi Glen, There's so much going on in your comment.
First, it is worth giving BC Assessment credit for estimating accurately the market values of BC homes. It is regarded as a/the top ranked property/housing value assessment agency in North America. So there is reason to be confident that the $2.4 million assessment I received this year is in line with my home's market value. Problem is: if I lived in Ontario, we couldn't feel so confident, and there is reason to worry that many home assessments are lower than market value. This gives reason to grow calls in Ontario, and across Canada, for Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in Ontario to "up its game" and align with best practices that guide its provincial counterpart in BC.
Second, the undervaluing of homes in Ontario (and elsewhere) for annual property tax purposes is part of a broader systemic problem that results in relatively little taxation of housing wealth, and heavy reliance on taxation of income. As you know, the Gen Squeeze position is that governments should reduce taxes on lower and middle income earners, and compensate by asking higher value homeowners like me to pay more taxes on my housing wealth.
Third, and here is where I may diverge from you a little, and why I only "liked" your earlier comment, but I don't want to devote Gen Squeeze organizational time to the tactic you propose to rile up older home owners. One part of our theory of change in Gen Squeeze is that we need to open the heads and hearts of older homeowners to the idea that they should accept some increases to the taxation of our homes to show solidarity for the Canadian dream that a good home should be in reach for what hard work can pay for. Your tactic would have us drum up alarm among older home owners at the prospect of paying more in taxation. That tactic doesn't seem to be in the long term interest of shifting more taxation toward housing wealth, and away from income. I take heart from someone like you who is already open to the tax shift concept. The polling data show most Canadians are with you. So now we need to reveal for politicians that it would be politically safe to move policy in that direction.
Fourth, ultimately, you are right, we need more and more Canadian homeowners to routinely signal that we don't want our home values to rise. I see why you like your tactic, because it can contribute to this cultural shift. Happily, polling data shows that much of that shift has already happened, with 69% agreeing with the statement: to restore affordability for all, we need home prices to stall, so that earnings can catch up. The Prime Minister has affirmed this publicly (although we need him to repeat the message more), and we need other political leaders to get on board with where the public has already gone.
Thanks, as always, for your insights and contributions to the Gen Squeeze community and dialogue. Best,
In addition to donations to Gen. Squeeze, what else can we do? Does Gen. Squeeze offer a guide on what ordinary citizens can do? We can write to our MPs or call them but how can we apply any pressure on them?
Yes, join gensqueese in supporting federal bill M-86! The vote will be NEXT WEEK! Call and leave a message for your MP to vote for bill M-86 to form a citizens' assembly on election reform. Right now hundreds of calls are being made to Liberal and Cons MPs to ask them to vote FOR this private members' bill (other parties already support it). See fairvote.ca for how to join in to multiply your voice, and read more detail! I don't know if anyone reached out directly to 'supporters' of gensqueeze about this... but I hope so!
For undecided MPs, hearing from constituents matters the most.
Just yesterday, another Conservative MP said that she will be voting for it, and that her position had changed as a result of a meeting with constituents.
A Liberal MP who has been a long-time opponent told constituents who have been canvassing and phoning supporters in his riding:
“I'm in a different place now than I've been for the last several years. I can see that this is a sticky issue that has staying power and has only been growing year after year..."
In the last two weeks, volunteers have placed more than 15,000 phone calls in the phone bank, asking supporters to call their MPs now.
Gensqueeze supporters could help!
Alas... this motion was voted down, so the wait for a fairer proportional representation system continues. But as Max Fawcett writes for the National Observer "that doesn’t mean electoral reform is dead — or that it couldn’t still happen before the next election." Let's hope he's right!
Hi Nauman - thanks for offering to lend a hand! We've actually been doing some behind the scenes musing about how we could support keen members of our community to engage with media, public officials etc, so we'd welcome your thoughts on what would be of assistance (and others please jump in too!).
Writing your elected reps does apply some pressure by showing them that Gen Squeeze is not alone in calling for generationally fairer budgets - others support this goal as well! We would certainly encourage you to share our budget recommendations now - and once budgets are released, our reviews of planned spending. All of these materials will be available on this page: https://www.gensqueeze.ca/2024_budget_season.
From our behind-the-scenes engagement efforts, we understand that there's still a window of opportunity to influence the federal budget. This means that you can still help us push the Generational Fairness Task Force ask across the finish line by bringing this action to the attention of your MP. You can find contact info for all MPs here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/search. We'd encourage you to copy your letter to the Ministers of Finance, Treasury Board, Labour, Families & Children. And if you haven't yet, don't forget to sign up on our Task Force page: https://www.gensqueeze.ca/generational_fairness_task_force
Population growth benefits owners of homes and businesses serving housing. It creates exactily the kind of country Canadians don't want:
https://populationinstitutecanada.ca/recent-polls-show-that-canadians-are-getting-exactly-what-they-dont-want/
If continued it will lead to 'colony collapse':
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2021/11/25/Cost-Of-Waiting/
There are people with a *huge* economic interest in conflating attitudes towards population growth with attitudes towards immigration, and the normal aging that happens in a stable population with 'demographic collapse'. Canada very clearly does not need 500k permanent immigrants a year--more people than babies have ever been born in a single year--just to combat aging or low birth rates. In the long run, Canada could accommodate some immigration without significant population growth and yet opposition to growth (which as you note is more redistributive than beneficial) gets framed as synonymous with anti-immigrant sentiment.
Coupled with restrictions on urban growth, it's hard to be told there's no space for previously-normal homes even as there is space to triple the population. And, despite some amount of blind faith that density will reduce car-dependence, there's not a strong association in a North American context and many other factors go into walkable communities. There's a lot of effort to conflate the things that density definitely does (use less land) with things that have more indirect associations (like walkability, and that because it makes housing more expensive people have smaller homes). You're not necessarily getting worse housing in exchange for livability or sustainability, sometimes you are just getting worse housing. That risk increases when you are in a desperate race to cram housing anywhere it will fit to accommodate growth.
Very interesting conversation going on here. Looking forward to the community call. Did gen squeeze attend Ontario PC policy convention this weekend?
Glad to hear that you'll be on the call Urich! Always great to see you. We didn't attend the convention, but are looking forward to seeing how the outcomes feed into the still upcoming ON budget. We've done some engagement with Ministerial offices on health and housing, so we know that there's still a great deal more work to do when it comes to building a generationally fair province.
After the Ontario government’s scrapping of rent controls (which only exacerbates the affordability crisis) and the underfunding of universities and health care have they demonstrated any interest in hearing from the grassroots organizations such as gen squeeze? Have they shown any receptiveness for your concerns?
Ontario currently isn't the easiest jurisdiction to get traction, and there are certainly places where the provincial government isn't following our evidence-based solutions. But we have found some entry points to bring forward the importance of applying a generational lens to policy design. Notably, we've met with provincial officials and elected reps on our work with Get Well Canada and the importance of investing in the building blocks of a healthy society as urgently as medical care. And we've met with a range of provincial officials on housing, and the need to look at more than housing supply to address harmful unaffordability (as was just confirmed AGAIN in this report: https://chec-ccrl.ca/rethinking-canadas-target-for-5-8-million-new-homes-by-2030/). We also don't confine our efforts to grow understanding of generational tensions to current (provincial or federal) governments - we've met with a number of Ontario MPPs from other parties as well.
Your efforts are admirable. Thank you for answering Andrea. I asked my original question to gain an understanding of how grassroots organizations are received by different governments in the federal and provincial space. It’s good to see that you can still find some common ground with politicians across the political spectrum in order to do what we all want: improve the lives of Canadians.
Hi Glen, There's so much going on in your comment.
First, it is worth giving BC Assessment credit for estimating accurately the market values of BC homes. It is regarded as a/the top ranked property/housing value assessment agency in North America. So there is reason to be confident that the $2.4 million assessment I received this year is in line with my home's market value. Problem is: if I lived in Ontario, we couldn't feel so confident, and there is reason to worry that many home assessments are lower than market value. This gives reason to grow calls in Ontario, and across Canada, for Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in Ontario to "up its game" and align with best practices that guide its provincial counterpart in BC.
Second, the undervaluing of homes in Ontario (and elsewhere) for annual property tax purposes is part of a broader systemic problem that results in relatively little taxation of housing wealth, and heavy reliance on taxation of income. As you know, the Gen Squeeze position is that governments should reduce taxes on lower and middle income earners, and compensate by asking higher value homeowners like me to pay more taxes on my housing wealth.
Third, and here is where I may diverge from you a little, and why I only "liked" your earlier comment, but I don't want to devote Gen Squeeze organizational time to the tactic you propose to rile up older home owners. One part of our theory of change in Gen Squeeze is that we need to open the heads and hearts of older homeowners to the idea that they should accept some increases to the taxation of our homes to show solidarity for the Canadian dream that a good home should be in reach for what hard work can pay for. Your tactic would have us drum up alarm among older home owners at the prospect of paying more in taxation. That tactic doesn't seem to be in the long term interest of shifting more taxation toward housing wealth, and away from income. I take heart from someone like you who is already open to the tax shift concept. The polling data show most Canadians are with you. So now we need to reveal for politicians that it would be politically safe to move policy in that direction.
Fourth, ultimately, you are right, we need more and more Canadian homeowners to routinely signal that we don't want our home values to rise. I see why you like your tactic, because it can contribute to this cultural shift. Happily, polling data shows that much of that shift has already happened, with 69% agreeing with the statement: to restore affordability for all, we need home prices to stall, so that earnings can catch up. The Prime Minister has affirmed this publicly (although we need him to repeat the message more), and we need other political leaders to get on board with where the public has already gone.
Thanks, as always, for your insights and contributions to the Gen Squeeze community and dialogue. Best,
P