I’m Gen X (later Gen X, but not quite millennial). It took us over 30 years of marriage to buy a house. Largely due to a low income childhood and being in debt before reaching adulthood.
I know this article reflects how may Gen Z feel (I have 3 kids who are Gen Z,) but I think there is also an opportunity. We have multiple generations who haven’t been taught how to build even a little wealth before moving out. Kids move out at 18 and of course can’t support themselves - but then we stigmatize those who stay at home until they’ve saved enough to launch independently.
There is another way to live - even in current circumstances. It takes planning, and patience, and a lot of follow-through. But it can be done. I would argue that instead of giving Gen Z a platform to talk about how unfair inflation is, more should be done to help increase intergenerational wealth, encourage young unmarried adults to stay at home. Open a TFSA or an FHSA or an RRSP as soon as they’re 18. Then contribute to it when they don’t have to pay rent. Value staying debt free with not using a credit card to lend money. These are things that Gen Z can do while still living at home and it’s an easy way for millennials and Gen X to support their kids.
Yes, the world and economy is different. The pandemic response destroyed a lot of our social connections and lowered literacy and general education. But there are options available to help support young adults in becoming stable. I know they’re not sexy options and I doubt a political party could cater to that - it’s not as catchy as build the homes or axe the tax. But maybe if we spent more time on solutions rather than slogans that get people worked up, we’d actually address the problem instead of creating attention economies that stoke frustration and hopelessness but don’t change how someone lives.
As an early gen X myself, this makes lots of sense and indeed I am doing it with my kids. The idea of the family as a multi-generational institution faded away post WW2 because the "educate the kids, then they're on their own" option was economically viable. Those days are over, for most.
I'm early Gen X (born 1968) and have four adult GenZ aged 26 through 18. While I agree with much of what you're advocating, I would disagree with one key point you make - encouraging young unmarried adults to stay at home.
I understand why you might think it's a good idea from a cost-savings point of view, but I'd counter that the living-at-home long into legal adulthood can't help but hinder their personal development as actual, practical, independent adults, because no matter how vigilant the parents are to try to kick start that development, the fact remains they never have to set up their own 'nest' to live in and work from and all the adult responsibilities that accompany that process.
With our kids, we've advocated they look for options to move out of home and co-habitate in rental arrangements with several of their peers. Back when I was in college, I had one roommate. Today, that looks like as many as three to five roommates. This admittedly can be a challenge to find rental arrangements that accomodate this many bodies, not to mention finding compatible roommates, but I'd argue that process alone, combined with living with others and figuring out splits for rent, utilities, household chores and cleaning, and so on are very beneficial for their development as functioning practical adults. It's worked for all four of my young adults - not without some bumps - but I've seen their development and maturity grow over the past half decade.
I'd like to stress that your suggestions of TFSA, FHSA, and RRSP contributions are excellent strategies. Staying completely debt-free may be unrealistic if they are attending school, but managing student loans and working with their bank advisors to obtain Student Lines Of Credit at favourable rates and repayment schedules, while only using credit cards with fixed spend limits and automatic monthly repayment of their FULL balance, again helps them manage the realities of financial literacy required of an adult. Not paying rent while living at home offers, in my opinion, an unrealistic and padded version of adult life.
One more thing I'd advocate is reducing their expectations regarding transporation. They don't need a new or even next-to-new car - something older in reasonable condition, particularly a simple vehicle that they can do much of the maintenance on themselves, will save them a ton of money on auto payments, while helping them gain confidence and discipline by doing simple routine maintenance on those vehicles themselves. They should be encouraged to set aside a monthly fund for more major auto maintenance that may arise. Additionally, taking advantage of student or low income rates for transit passes (assuming their local community has functionally safe transit buses and/or trains) should also be encouraged.
Young adults will become more confident, capable, and stable if they are forced to do so. Some may require an extra year or two at home to be ready for this, as every child matures at a different rate, so I'm not an absolutist that adult kids should always leave at age 18. I do think, however, the sooner they are ready to leave the nest, the better.
We have multiple generations who haven’t been taught how to build even a little wealth before moving out. Kids move out at 18 and of course can’t support themselves - but then we stigmatize those who stay at home until they’ve saved enough to launch independently.
END QUOTE
Precisely this. I've often been at a loss when I hear other parents talk about how much they are looking forward to seeing their children off to independence at university when they turn 18. Much less living on their own without a post-secondary education.
One doesn't need a degree in social science to see how divided things have gotten in Canada. Ideology plays a major part in the great divide. If our politicians were honest and motivated by the need to improve the lives of Canadians instead of the constant need to cater to this and that faction in order to get re-elected, we might not see such a huge chasm. Unfortunately, we insist on electing unscrupulous selfish and self-interested individuals who don't seem to much care about the impact of their decisions on Canadians. We need to get serious about the affairs of this country or it will fracture beyond repair in short order.
"... If our politicians were honest and motivated ..."
I presume that you use the word "honest" in the sense of veracity and not in the criminal sense. That being so, I suggest another phrase for you, "If pigs could fly."
Yes, I agree that "... we insist on electing unscrupulous selfish and self-interested individuals who don't seem to much care about the impact of their decisions on Canadians ..."
As for "getting serious" as a necessity to avoid fracture, I believe that the country has already fractured irreparably. The only questions are a) the timing of the actual breakup of the country and b) what pieces will be picked off by the south and what pieces will be left to fend for themselves.
The biggest difference between young and old conservatives is the abandonment of cant. The young look at Canada as it is today, and see that ideas like Canada as a civic nation, DEI as some kind of fairness, courts as impartial proponents of law, or the media as a source of truth, are simply nonsense, top to bottom.
My Boomer friends are hoping to run out the clock on their lives with their bubbles unburst, while the young know that we can only restore or improve Canada by abandoning dead ideas. No wonder the young are impatient.
Very useful article to this boomer. I have been advocating higher taxes on high income seniors to fund a tax cut for younger Canadians. The generations before us endured depression and war and we rode the benefits of their sacrifices. The generations after us sacrificed mightily in Covid. Our turn to sacrifice for their benefit, and not just to benefit our own children. Canada must not become a place where success is hereditary.
Higher taxes for this Govt is like rewarding the kid who stole a candy by giving him another one. Politicians treat all of these " boutique " solutions, the way a crow treats a shiny object. Start at the top, not the bottom.
Higher taxes are never a solution and would be challenging to only apply to high income seniors. A better approach would be to push out OAS eligibility and aggressively claw back OAS such thst no one earning over the median income receives any. Could also implement a health care surcharges like $1K starting when someone hits 50 and escalating $200 per year
An OAS clawback or a health care surcharge? Sounds like a tax to me. Whatever works, just take some money from the richest boomers and cut younger people a break.
Remigration is far more sensible than tax increases. Serious remigration will reduce the value of our houses and increase the costs of our cleaners, travel, and meals out, while increasing young people's wages.
It will also give young people the hope of Canada as a nation and a people to whom we are loyal, rather than a mere economic zone or corporation where we are willing to replace the staff of we can find newcomers to work for less.
I understand your point, but in my case an increase in taxes would mean that the money I am now investing in my grandchildren’s names would be the first thing to reduce or cut. In my case, much of my ‘wealth’ will bypass my Gen X kids and go to my Gen Z grandchildren.
Same. But we need to find a way not to entrench intergenerational inequality. Without denying the natural and valuable desire of people to work hard to provide a brighter future for their own progeny. Tough balance to strike!
Interesting in that this is really the first time in history that I can recall that it has been a problem. There was some transfer from the previous generation to boomers, but nothing like the current situation. My belief is that if governments had kept their eye on the economy and their duty of governance this would not be the problem it is today. As a boomer, I was 40 before I was able to scrape up a 5% down and squeeze into a very small and modest house.
The problem with Canada is that all too many Boomers don't want to pass on a livable country to their children's generation of Canadians, even when they want to give money to their own kids
As a Gen X'r, unrepentant zombie Reganite and Thatcherite, and substantial asset holder I fully identify with the young conservative movement. Current times feel much like early 90s Canada
Doug, as a Boomer, I do not see a parallel to the early 90s. At that time, notwithstanding the economic dislocation that we in Alberta suffered in the 80s to 90s there was, it seems to me, the prospect of improvement in our country. I definitely do not seen such positive prospects now.
The early 90s were also a period of high unemployment and poor economic growth resulting from an overhang of Trudeaupian spending and intervention. The main difference is that inflation was declining. I lived on Edmonton with 6 other people crowded into a crappy 4 bedroom townhouse. My roommates and I wallpapered the place with the hundreds of rejection letters we got from prospective employers and university programs.
Yes, the 90s were high unemployment, etc., particularly here in Alberta (as you know). I was running a small (nay, it was microscopic) business and I watched as many businesses, sometimes my clients, dropped by the wayside (and I had to eat their bad debts); I survived but it was nip and tuck. It was a time of anxiety, certainly, but at that time I still believed things would get better. Now I no longer have that belief.
Many good comments and different ideas put forward, but, to me, no one has really spent much time discussing the elephant in the room, namely, our incompetent, inept Governments, which, by the way, are made up of Boomers, Gen Z, Gen X and the rest of the alphabet. I weep for the days when Governments worked to build countries, not party ideologies.
OAS should only be paid to the bottom 50% by income of seniors, Also the primary residence exemption should be removed . I say this as a well off Boomer who owns my own house.
I'm 62 and support Pierre. I agree Pierre's tone seems to be a huge issue for people my age, I hear it all the time, but I don't get it.
He doesn't insult people or lie. He is direct and sometimes emphatic, also sometimes he cracks jokes.
If people are judging him on the basis of whether he's the kind of guy they'd like to ha e dinner with it's only because they aren't listening to what he is saying. Voters more aware of Canada's issues would, or should, be less concerned with his tone.
Pierre rubs them the wrong way because Pierre violates their cultural codes. Confrontation is a serious faux pas with the higher and more powerful subclasses in Canada, and demanding personal accountability is the equivalent of asking someone if they farted.
Best one: “Gen Z is living with the consequences of the progressive revolution launched in the 1960s by a generation that took for granted the cultural and civilizational inheritance we now lack.”
I was a conservative teen boomer in a Liberal family. I knew under Trudeau senior things were going awry but I and many others were outnumbered not only by boomers but much of the previous generation especially the “Silent Generation” who did not take part in WWII. Too young. But not as young as boomers. The initial honest attempt to do the right thing in Vietnam turned sideways — as did society in only a few years. We are paying for that now. In spades. On many fronts.
How about a discussion along the same lines about what and who drives the Liberals - who they appeal to and why. Time for an analysis of that segment of the voting public. Enough self reflection on Conservatives - time to dig into the psyche of Liberal Party supporters. Surely there is some major division there too.
Fantastic framing of the new dynamic, and one that legacy media still doesn't seem to understand. We continually see pundits droning on about Pierre's negativity, and it makes sense given their age (in most cases) that this would bother them. I've always struggled with this when you really do see how many people identify with Pierre's blunt language and critiques of government. I wish he would be a bit more explicit in clarifying viewpoints against Liberal smears like abortion fearmongering, but he generally gets his point across and doesn't heave out a bunch of word salad as other leaders do.
But, as The Line Podcast has done a great job of pointing out over the past year, Pierre seems to have a tragic flaw in that he doesn't change his messaging/strategy quickly to react to world events. And it's doomed our country to another Liberal government...
Pierre's negativity bothers me more because it's unrelenting, often petty, and he doesn't present productive alternatives.
I do think he has many strengths other modern politicans lack. But the pettiness is very worrisome. We already had a PMO that thought it was God, I don't think we need one that thinks it's God AND gets cranky about every time someone says anything slightly mean about it.
A decent example is that recent Toronto Sun thing of his that went viral. Even when you add the context back, it's Poilievre getting a softball question, giving an answer that suggests he hasn't ever really considered the question before (and given his role and the fact that he's an ex-Cabinet Minister, that's a problem in itself), and then going on about the evils of Trudeau and the RCMP leadership.
He does that sort of thing all the time. I am sure it is not the only thing he does, but I am not sifting through interviews looking for the best of Pierre Poilievre. If he can't manage to present it, that's kind of a problem he needs to solve.
"... he doesn't present productive alternatives ..."
Hmmm ....
I offer to you the words of the 13th Prime Minister of Canada, John George Diefenbaker" who (it is my recollection) said "The job of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to oppose!" In other words, the government proposes and the job of the opposition is to seek out the flaws and oppose those flaws in order to make better the government "solutions."
Now, having said that, as Allen Batchelar notes, PP has presented positive alternatives. The media, of course, ignore such proposals and instead concentrate on "negativity."
Opposing is not the same thing as just sheer contrarianism.
You can go 'we should not do X, we should do Y.' You can go, 'we should do X, but the government has not considered Z, which means it's going to blow up in their faces.' You can go 'I don't think we should do X, we can't afford it.'
Just repeatedly going 'no, this is bad and the Liberals are bad for doing it because the Liberals are bad' was a major Opposition strategy in the mid-90s. I would note how that worked out for them.
That recent clip of his that went viral from the Sun (and which absolutely WAS taken out of context) is a decent example. It's a softball question from a friendly interviewer (as an aside, if the Liberals are responsible for 1/3 of political scandals in Canadian history, that would seem to suggest that they might actually be MORE honest than the other parties. That feels like a number that could use some explaining). And yet most of the answer (after the question already did the grandstanding for him by talking about the corruption) is him complaining about Trudeau and blaming the RCMP for covering up Trudeau's crimes.
It makes him look bitter, partisan, and petty. Not least because I can think of plenty of Conservative examples of people not being charged for criminal actions, too. It is a VERY unfortunate part of politics in this country, and I think the country would be significantly healthier if we cracked down on it. Vic Toews didn't get charged. Rob Ford didn't get charged. Maxime Bernier didn't get charged. Pierre Poilievre didn't get charged re his advertising scandal. If you know anything about politics in this country (or even vaguely remember the Harper years), his hypocrisy is blatant.
If you don't know anything about politics in this country, he still comes across as far more focused on what Justin Trudeau has done wrong than what he would do. His answer is brief, obviously not deeply considered, and he spends more time talking about how bad Trudeau is than about how he would handle similar situations. He uses no examples, despite Tony Clement being an obvious go-to comparison. I mean, the man was in Cabinet before, he has no memory of any previous ethics scandals? I'm honestly left with the impression he'd never considered the question before. Or that he'd actually do the exact same things as Trudeau in the same situation, his only problem is with it being Trudeau and not him doing it. Neither suggests he should be our next Prime Minister.
The Canadian people would actually probably respond pretty well to someone genuinely upset about how badly things are going in this country. That is not the impression he gives. Given he built his career on faking outrage over partisan bullshit, I am sadly not surprised by that. He's not good at appearing to be genuine. Whether that is unfortunate (because he is) or merely accurate (because he isn't), he's not.
It's less about the quantity and more about his focus. I have a more lengthy comment elsewhere where I go through his response to a softball friendly question about 'oh the Liberals are ethical scum, how would you handle these situations?' His answer is brief, gives the impression he's never thought about it before that moment (I think I might give a better answer off the cuff, and that's concerning), and gets into no specifics whatsoever other than when talking about Justin Trudeau and the RCMP and how bad they are.
His responses are frequently like that.
I assure you, the Canadian public are eager for alternatives. They lost patience with Trudeau a long time ago. He needs to offer more than 'I don't like Justin/the Liberals' and frequently fails to do that. This especially doesn't work if you pay attention to politics and aren't a partisan Conservative, because you remember him excusing similar hijinks by his own party, and the impression left is that he either remains a partisan attack dog or just doesn't mean this any more than he meant the lunacy he used to spout back then.
I agree that his replies are occasionally unnecessarily combative. Point taken.
I agree that Canadians are open to alternatives. Mr. Poilievre & the Conservative team have offered those alternatives, and Canadians have rejected them.
I disagree, respectfully, that the last 10 years of feckless, futile, failure have yet to be properly & sufficiently litigated.
By any measure of reason, Justin Trudeau was guilty of obstruction of justice, and the RCMP made a blatant political decision not to prosecute. This is important, because it is not criticism that erodes trust in our institutions, but corruption.
When did any Conservative ever commit a cultural offence as egregious as the “blackface scandal”?
I enjoyed the chat.
Thank you for being civil, but holding Pierre Poilievre to the highest standard, while absolving the Liberals of their Lost Liberal Decade, is just careless and inexcusable.
The stability desired by older conservatives was floated on the post-war economic growth fueled by public and private debt. The lifting of all boats was on a wave of relatively easy money. The real purchasing power of that money has now eroded and there is pressure to start deleveraging from the bond market.
I am puzzled by the routine focus on the increase of house prices, as the only way to access that 'wealth' is to sell and arbitrage living more cheaply somewhere else. Some do, many do not because it means uprooting themselves from friends and family. I suspect it's the feeling that a homeowner could conceivably do this that underwrites a positive sense of economic security. Being house rich and cash poor is a thing for many seniors never mind younger homeowners. Houses do not help if you have a cash flow problem and HELOCs are not really a solution.
The only way I see out of this is to remove housing as an investment asset class by getting rid of the PR tax exemption, but Canadians won't accept that and no party is willing to touch that third rail.
The problem with getting rid of the PR tax exemption is that it makes it difficult for people to move for work. If you have to pay tax when you sell your house, you will be unable to afford an equivalent new house in a new location.
I agree this is a problem, however isn't this a similar criticism to the use of long term mortgages in the U.S.? Dynamism in the workforce being impeded by people not wanting to give up a low mortgage rate if they move. I suspect this also exacerbates tensions between the work-from-home part of the population and those who need to be physically present at their work.
The permanent residence capital gains exemption could only be applied going forward. Don't expect getting rid of it to bring in much tax revenue going forward as the housing market will likely move sideways to down for a long time
Wasn't really thinking of removal of the Primary Residence exemption as a revenue generating tool, but more to remove the incentive to use homes as an investment asset class which competes with other classes like stocks, ETFs, etc. Capital gains exemptions skews incentives for investment decisions.
Poilievre regularly says: “anyone from anywhere can achieve anything. That hard work gets you a great life, with a beautiful house, on a safe street, under our proud flag,”
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how ANYONE finds this AT ALL "divisive"...
As an Atlantic Canadian, I firmly believe in three principles:
1. Red Toryism is correct.
2. This country's faults can be entirely attributed to not letting Atlantic Canada run things any more.
3. The rest of this nation has become weak and broken by abandoning fine Celtic principles, as best exemplified in Atlantic Canada.
The connection or disconnection of these principles to reality is irrelevant.
That said, the bit where the older CPC has little or no apparent view that the successful have a responsibility toward those less successful is a pretty clear sign why Red Toryism needs a comeback and why letting the West have the party was a mistake. Or, possibly, a demonstration that too many conservatives are, deep down, just in it to get theirs (a fault not exactly limited to conservatives).
Speaking as a youthish, I also note that I have a lifelong experience of pointing out problems that affect people being minimized and hushed because it makes the older authority figures uncomfortable. While this is hardly new as a problem, it also explains a lot of the backlash in conservatism. The bit where the youth finally get fed up with being told to shut up is historically inevitable.
If Red Toryism had a better economic record perhaps. But Atlantic Canada is the poorest part of both Canada and the US, and it's GDP numbers are verging on Eastern European levels.
If "equality" insists on lowering people down to the lowest common denominator, into the mediocrity so that feelings aren't hurt, no thanks. A bit of ambition and drive is required, and if that pisses off folks, just the better.
All of Canada seriously needs more ambition and drive to be honest.
Atlantic Canada used to be the economic heartland of the country. A few centuries of funding and opportunities being funnelled to Central Canada has not been kind. There's certainly other problems, don't get me wrong. But a lot of it boils down to that. Being treated as though we're a far-off wasteland full of serfs that no one could possibly ever reach by logistical networks is also annoying and not great for the economy (that's better than it used to be, but you can have amazing conversations with suppliers who do not want to supply you because you're a bunch of hicks who obviously don't actually want their product. Or you don't get technician support you're supposedly entitled to. Or hell, I remember Canada Post's mailing times used to be +1 days for Atlantic Canada. This was nowhere on the signs, and they charged you the same. Or the bit where our borrowing rates were worse for years).
Part of this, to be fair, is simply the fact that time marches on. The population centres have shifted. Atlantic Canada is a lot more out of the way than it used to be. But Atlantic Canada's economic struggles have a LOT more to do with location and historical preference by government, industry, and finance for Central Canada than with anything else. And with the classic 'primary industry' problem.
Also, Maritime Canada still has a higher GDP per capita than such economic basket cases as...Taiwan, South Korea, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Portugal, and Japan. Newfoundland has a lot of resource projects propping it up right now, but I remember how things were twenty years ago. I don't think Red Toryism proves much either way about Newfoundland.
As to ambition and drive...I have long wanted them to put a box on the census for 'which province are you FROM from.' I'm from a tiny fishing village in rural PEI. I now work in northern Manitoba. I have met a statistically improbable number of Islanders and Atlantic Canadians, because a huge portion of the population leaves temporarily or permanently in order to find work. Hell, I know multiple people from my hometown who have worked in this region specifically. There's plenty of ambition and drive. It just tends to end up leaving because of limited opportunities.
Fine and enjoyable trolling. We all have lifelong experience of pointing out problems (from our perspective) that affect people being minimized and hushed. You're not unique, rather the same as everyone else.
The youth of today are not being isolated from power, or being told to shut up anymore (and I would argue less) than the boomers were being told at the same stage of life by the generation formed by the Great Depression and World War II.
Also, if Celtic principles were so useful, why has Atlantic Canada with the world's greatest market literally on its doorstep being habitually unable to exploit its geographic advantage. Maybe a bit of humility would be more appropriate.
If it's a universal experience, then this whole 'the youth are cranky' thing seems more predictable, not less. Also, it is not a universal experience, because there is also the significant portion of the population who always do the hushing and see pointing out problems as people being difficult.
Short version re the economy? It didn't used to have difficulty exploiting the market. Around 1900 Atlantic Canada was a huge portion of the Canadian economy. Had something like 80% of the industry. Given the amount of government money and energy funneled into Ontario and Quebec in the next century, their advantages in population, plus the bit where that same market is also on THEIR doorstep, I don't think the outcome is terribly surprising in some ways.
I'd note that New England underwent a very similar process re industry leaving etc. Why they are doing better than Atlantic Canada is a very interesting question - the economies are similarly structured between New England and Atlantic Canada, even now. That said, go compare lobster prices in Atlantic Canada vs those in Maine and I'm not sure that isn't enough to make up the difference in GDP all by itself. They seem to get about 2-5 times what Canadian fishers do, and that's comparing CAD to USD. So more like...3-8 times? Other industries are harder to gauge things with, but if they're just flat out getting paid more for their primary resources that will have a huge impact in a region that relies heavily on primary resource production. I'm kind of amazed by the lack of government or academic research into this.
Thanks for a thoughtful analysis. I agree the old party labels are by and large irrelevant today.
I see age as a useful correlation with political preference but IMO it’s not a primary cause. The relevant dividing line is between the entitled and the non entitled. Entitlement is based on home ownership including the ability to inherit, holding a government or government related job, various forms of welfare/pogey (which explains the Maritimes voting patterns), and living in Quebec subsidy land vs Canada.
The benefit of age correlation is that the boomers will be dying off in the next decade or two so the tension will ease somewhat. (As a side note if
Canada had not adopted Chinese style oppression to deal with COVID the relative survival rates of the two age groups would have helped ease this age related tension sooner. Losing 2 years of employment
screwed today’s young as the author points out. ).
The other way in which the entitled real estate owners dominate the non entitled is in Canada’s interest rate policy. Keeping this rate low to minimize real estate foreclosures and jack prices up also keeps the CDN $ low which cheapens our exported products but keeps Canada inefficient. Almost the same as dumping except that’s it’s not as obvious as subsidizing exports directly so Canada has been able to sneak by. However that particular party seems to be coming to an end. US tariffs IMO will drag Canada screaming into a more competitive world and everyone will benefit eventually. Finally we will see “ Made in Canada” as a sign of pride in the same sense as “Made in the USA” does down south. Maybe Canadian Tire will be forced to sell local instead of the Chinese crap they seem to be known for.
I am halfway through watching “The American Revolution” on PBS and highly recommend it. Substitute “Canadian entitled elites” for King George III and the parallels quickly emerge. It certainly explains why the governing liberals are so obsessed with disarming the Canadian citizenry.
I’m Gen X (later Gen X, but not quite millennial). It took us over 30 years of marriage to buy a house. Largely due to a low income childhood and being in debt before reaching adulthood.
I know this article reflects how may Gen Z feel (I have 3 kids who are Gen Z,) but I think there is also an opportunity. We have multiple generations who haven’t been taught how to build even a little wealth before moving out. Kids move out at 18 and of course can’t support themselves - but then we stigmatize those who stay at home until they’ve saved enough to launch independently.
There is another way to live - even in current circumstances. It takes planning, and patience, and a lot of follow-through. But it can be done. I would argue that instead of giving Gen Z a platform to talk about how unfair inflation is, more should be done to help increase intergenerational wealth, encourage young unmarried adults to stay at home. Open a TFSA or an FHSA or an RRSP as soon as they’re 18. Then contribute to it when they don’t have to pay rent. Value staying debt free with not using a credit card to lend money. These are things that Gen Z can do while still living at home and it’s an easy way for millennials and Gen X to support their kids.
Yes, the world and economy is different. The pandemic response destroyed a lot of our social connections and lowered literacy and general education. But there are options available to help support young adults in becoming stable. I know they’re not sexy options and I doubt a political party could cater to that - it’s not as catchy as build the homes or axe the tax. But maybe if we spent more time on solutions rather than slogans that get people worked up, we’d actually address the problem instead of creating attention economies that stoke frustration and hopelessness but don’t change how someone lives.
As an early gen X myself, this makes lots of sense and indeed I am doing it with my kids. The idea of the family as a multi-generational institution faded away post WW2 because the "educate the kids, then they're on their own" option was economically viable. Those days are over, for most.
The problem is that the generation of parents where the kid should live at home largely didn't have to because the economy permitted them not to.
I concur that it should be vastly more common than it is, and that stigmatizing it (especially in a housing crisis) is dumb.
I'm early Gen X (born 1968) and have four adult GenZ aged 26 through 18. While I agree with much of what you're advocating, I would disagree with one key point you make - encouraging young unmarried adults to stay at home.
I understand why you might think it's a good idea from a cost-savings point of view, but I'd counter that the living-at-home long into legal adulthood can't help but hinder their personal development as actual, practical, independent adults, because no matter how vigilant the parents are to try to kick start that development, the fact remains they never have to set up their own 'nest' to live in and work from and all the adult responsibilities that accompany that process.
With our kids, we've advocated they look for options to move out of home and co-habitate in rental arrangements with several of their peers. Back when I was in college, I had one roommate. Today, that looks like as many as three to five roommates. This admittedly can be a challenge to find rental arrangements that accomodate this many bodies, not to mention finding compatible roommates, but I'd argue that process alone, combined with living with others and figuring out splits for rent, utilities, household chores and cleaning, and so on are very beneficial for their development as functioning practical adults. It's worked for all four of my young adults - not without some bumps - but I've seen their development and maturity grow over the past half decade.
I'd like to stress that your suggestions of TFSA, FHSA, and RRSP contributions are excellent strategies. Staying completely debt-free may be unrealistic if they are attending school, but managing student loans and working with their bank advisors to obtain Student Lines Of Credit at favourable rates and repayment schedules, while only using credit cards with fixed spend limits and automatic monthly repayment of their FULL balance, again helps them manage the realities of financial literacy required of an adult. Not paying rent while living at home offers, in my opinion, an unrealistic and padded version of adult life.
One more thing I'd advocate is reducing their expectations regarding transporation. They don't need a new or even next-to-new car - something older in reasonable condition, particularly a simple vehicle that they can do much of the maintenance on themselves, will save them a ton of money on auto payments, while helping them gain confidence and discipline by doing simple routine maintenance on those vehicles themselves. They should be encouraged to set aside a monthly fund for more major auto maintenance that may arise. Additionally, taking advantage of student or low income rates for transit passes (assuming their local community has functionally safe transit buses and/or trains) should also be encouraged.
Young adults will become more confident, capable, and stable if they are forced to do so. Some may require an extra year or two at home to be ready for this, as every child matures at a different rate, so I'm not an absolutist that adult kids should always leave at age 18. I do think, however, the sooner they are ready to leave the nest, the better.
Top marks on all points.
This works great if the parents actually love their children. I don't personally know anyone like that.
QUOTE
We have multiple generations who haven’t been taught how to build even a little wealth before moving out. Kids move out at 18 and of course can’t support themselves - but then we stigmatize those who stay at home until they’ve saved enough to launch independently.
END QUOTE
Precisely this. I've often been at a loss when I hear other parents talk about how much they are looking forward to seeing their children off to independence at university when they turn 18. Much less living on their own without a post-secondary education.
Nuts.
One doesn't need a degree in social science to see how divided things have gotten in Canada. Ideology plays a major part in the great divide. If our politicians were honest and motivated by the need to improve the lives of Canadians instead of the constant need to cater to this and that faction in order to get re-elected, we might not see such a huge chasm. Unfortunately, we insist on electing unscrupulous selfish and self-interested individuals who don't seem to much care about the impact of their decisions on Canadians. We need to get serious about the affairs of this country or it will fracture beyond repair in short order.
"... If our politicians were honest and motivated ..."
I presume that you use the word "honest" in the sense of veracity and not in the criminal sense. That being so, I suggest another phrase for you, "If pigs could fly."
Yes, I agree that "... we insist on electing unscrupulous selfish and self-interested individuals who don't seem to much care about the impact of their decisions on Canadians ..."
As for "getting serious" as a necessity to avoid fracture, I believe that the country has already fractured irreparably. The only questions are a) the timing of the actual breakup of the country and b) what pieces will be picked off by the south and what pieces will be left to fend for themselves.
Indeed, I’m not implying politicians are criminals, just not inclined to act in Canada and Canadians’ best interest.
The biggest difference between young and old conservatives is the abandonment of cant. The young look at Canada as it is today, and see that ideas like Canada as a civic nation, DEI as some kind of fairness, courts as impartial proponents of law, or the media as a source of truth, are simply nonsense, top to bottom.
My Boomer friends are hoping to run out the clock on their lives with their bubbles unburst, while the young know that we can only restore or improve Canada by abandoning dead ideas. No wonder the young are impatient.
Very useful article to this boomer. I have been advocating higher taxes on high income seniors to fund a tax cut for younger Canadians. The generations before us endured depression and war and we rode the benefits of their sacrifices. The generations after us sacrificed mightily in Covid. Our turn to sacrifice for their benefit, and not just to benefit our own children. Canada must not become a place where success is hereditary.
Not more taxes. We all pay enough taxes. Freedom to grow and prosper through less regulation is what is necessary.
I am over 60 but my young adult children are all conservative, economically and socially. They aren’t
bothered by Pierre’s “tone”.
Higher taxes for this Govt is like rewarding the kid who stole a candy by giving him another one. Politicians treat all of these " boutique " solutions, the way a crow treats a shiny object. Start at the top, not the bottom.
Higher taxes are never a solution and would be challenging to only apply to high income seniors. A better approach would be to push out OAS eligibility and aggressively claw back OAS such thst no one earning over the median income receives any. Could also implement a health care surcharges like $1K starting when someone hits 50 and escalating $200 per year
An OAS clawback or a health care surcharge? Sounds like a tax to me. Whatever works, just take some money from the richest boomers and cut younger people a break.
Remigration is far more sensible than tax increases. Serious remigration will reduce the value of our houses and increase the costs of our cleaners, travel, and meals out, while increasing young people's wages.
It will also give young people the hope of Canada as a nation and a people to whom we are loyal, rather than a mere economic zone or corporation where we are willing to replace the staff of we can find newcomers to work for less.
I understand your point, but in my case an increase in taxes would mean that the money I am now investing in my grandchildren’s names would be the first thing to reduce or cut. In my case, much of my ‘wealth’ will bypass my Gen X kids and go to my Gen Z grandchildren.
Same. But we need to find a way not to entrench intergenerational inequality. Without denying the natural and valuable desire of people to work hard to provide a brighter future for their own progeny. Tough balance to strike!
Interesting in that this is really the first time in history that I can recall that it has been a problem. There was some transfer from the previous generation to boomers, but nothing like the current situation. My belief is that if governments had kept their eye on the economy and their duty of governance this would not be the problem it is today. As a boomer, I was 40 before I was able to scrape up a 5% down and squeeze into a very small and modest house.
The problem with Canada is that all too many Boomers don't want to pass on a livable country to their children's generation of Canadians, even when they want to give money to their own kids
As a Gen X'r, unrepentant zombie Reganite and Thatcherite, and substantial asset holder I fully identify with the young conservative movement. Current times feel much like early 90s Canada
Doug, as a Boomer, I do not see a parallel to the early 90s. At that time, notwithstanding the economic dislocation that we in Alberta suffered in the 80s to 90s there was, it seems to me, the prospect of improvement in our country. I definitely do not seen such positive prospects now.
The early 90s were also a period of high unemployment and poor economic growth resulting from an overhang of Trudeaupian spending and intervention. The main difference is that inflation was declining. I lived on Edmonton with 6 other people crowded into a crappy 4 bedroom townhouse. My roommates and I wallpapered the place with the hundreds of rejection letters we got from prospective employers and university programs.
Yes, the 90s were high unemployment, etc., particularly here in Alberta (as you know). I was running a small (nay, it was microscopic) business and I watched as many businesses, sometimes my clients, dropped by the wayside (and I had to eat their bad debts); I survived but it was nip and tuck. It was a time of anxiety, certainly, but at that time I still believed things would get better. Now I no longer have that belief.
Many good comments and different ideas put forward, but, to me, no one has really spent much time discussing the elephant in the room, namely, our incompetent, inept Governments, which, by the way, are made up of Boomers, Gen Z, Gen X and the rest of the alphabet. I weep for the days when Governments worked to build countries, not party ideologies.
You weep for a time that has never been.
OAS should only be paid to the bottom 50% by income of seniors, Also the primary residence exemption should be removed . I say this as a well off Boomer who owns my own house.
You might not say that if you sell your house and have to pay maybe 30% tax on a $200,000 gain.
I'm 62 and support Pierre. I agree Pierre's tone seems to be a huge issue for people my age, I hear it all the time, but I don't get it.
He doesn't insult people or lie. He is direct and sometimes emphatic, also sometimes he cracks jokes.
If people are judging him on the basis of whether he's the kind of guy they'd like to ha e dinner with it's only because they aren't listening to what he is saying. Voters more aware of Canada's issues would, or should, be less concerned with his tone.
Pierre rubs them the wrong way because Pierre violates their cultural codes. Confrontation is a serious faux pas with the higher and more powerful subclasses in Canada, and demanding personal accountability is the equivalent of asking someone if they farted.
It's all cultural.
Some fair comment here.
Best one: “Gen Z is living with the consequences of the progressive revolution launched in the 1960s by a generation that took for granted the cultural and civilizational inheritance we now lack.”
I was a conservative teen boomer in a Liberal family. I knew under Trudeau senior things were going awry but I and many others were outnumbered not only by boomers but much of the previous generation especially the “Silent Generation” who did not take part in WWII. Too young. But not as young as boomers. The initial honest attempt to do the right thing in Vietnam turned sideways — as did society in only a few years. We are paying for that now. In spades. On many fronts.
A timely article. Thanks for the insight.
How about a discussion along the same lines about what and who drives the Liberals - who they appeal to and why. Time for an analysis of that segment of the voting public. Enough self reflection on Conservatives - time to dig into the psyche of Liberal Party supporters. Surely there is some major division there too.
Fantastic framing of the new dynamic, and one that legacy media still doesn't seem to understand. We continually see pundits droning on about Pierre's negativity, and it makes sense given their age (in most cases) that this would bother them. I've always struggled with this when you really do see how many people identify with Pierre's blunt language and critiques of government. I wish he would be a bit more explicit in clarifying viewpoints against Liberal smears like abortion fearmongering, but he generally gets his point across and doesn't heave out a bunch of word salad as other leaders do.
But, as The Line Podcast has done a great job of pointing out over the past year, Pierre seems to have a tragic flaw in that he doesn't change his messaging/strategy quickly to react to world events. And it's doomed our country to another Liberal government...
Pierre's negativity bothers me more because it's unrelenting, often petty, and he doesn't present productive alternatives.
I do think he has many strengths other modern politicans lack. But the pettiness is very worrisome. We already had a PMO that thought it was God, I don't think we need one that thinks it's God AND gets cranky about every time someone says anything slightly mean about it.
There have been many interviews during which PP has presented positive alternatives. You are obviously not paying attention.
Exactly.
Uh huh.
A decent example is that recent Toronto Sun thing of his that went viral. Even when you add the context back, it's Poilievre getting a softball question, giving an answer that suggests he hasn't ever really considered the question before (and given his role and the fact that he's an ex-Cabinet Minister, that's a problem in itself), and then going on about the evils of Trudeau and the RCMP leadership.
He does that sort of thing all the time. I am sure it is not the only thing he does, but I am not sifting through interviews looking for the best of Pierre Poilievre. If he can't manage to present it, that's kind of a problem he needs to solve.
"... he doesn't present productive alternatives ..."
Hmmm ....
I offer to you the words of the 13th Prime Minister of Canada, John George Diefenbaker" who (it is my recollection) said "The job of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to oppose!" In other words, the government proposes and the job of the opposition is to seek out the flaws and oppose those flaws in order to make better the government "solutions."
Now, having said that, as Allen Batchelar notes, PP has presented positive alternatives. The media, of course, ignore such proposals and instead concentrate on "negativity."
Opposing is not the same thing as just sheer contrarianism.
You can go 'we should not do X, we should do Y.' You can go, 'we should do X, but the government has not considered Z, which means it's going to blow up in their faces.' You can go 'I don't think we should do X, we can't afford it.'
Just repeatedly going 'no, this is bad and the Liberals are bad for doing it because the Liberals are bad' was a major Opposition strategy in the mid-90s. I would note how that worked out for them.
That recent clip of his that went viral from the Sun (and which absolutely WAS taken out of context) is a decent example. It's a softball question from a friendly interviewer (as an aside, if the Liberals are responsible for 1/3 of political scandals in Canadian history, that would seem to suggest that they might actually be MORE honest than the other parties. That feels like a number that could use some explaining). And yet most of the answer (after the question already did the grandstanding for him by talking about the corruption) is him complaining about Trudeau and blaming the RCMP for covering up Trudeau's crimes.
It makes him look bitter, partisan, and petty. Not least because I can think of plenty of Conservative examples of people not being charged for criminal actions, too. It is a VERY unfortunate part of politics in this country, and I think the country would be significantly healthier if we cracked down on it. Vic Toews didn't get charged. Rob Ford didn't get charged. Maxime Bernier didn't get charged. Pierre Poilievre didn't get charged re his advertising scandal. If you know anything about politics in this country (or even vaguely remember the Harper years), his hypocrisy is blatant.
If you don't know anything about politics in this country, he still comes across as far more focused on what Justin Trudeau has done wrong than what he would do. His answer is brief, obviously not deeply considered, and he spends more time talking about how bad Trudeau is than about how he would handle similar situations. He uses no examples, despite Tony Clement being an obvious go-to comparison. I mean, the man was in Cabinet before, he has no memory of any previous ethics scandals? I'm honestly left with the impression he'd never considered the question before. Or that he'd actually do the exact same things as Trudeau in the same situation, his only problem is with it being Trudeau and not him doing it. Neither suggests he should be our next Prime Minister.
The Canadian people would actually probably respond pretty well to someone genuinely upset about how badly things are going in this country. That is not the impression he gives. Given he built his career on faking outrage over partisan bullshit, I am sadly not surprised by that. He's not good at appearing to be genuine. Whether that is unfortunate (because he is) or merely accurate (because he isn't), he's not.
I have rebuttals for your various points but I see that you have made up your mind so I will simply note that I greatly disagree with you.
Have a good day.
I believe it was Randolph Churchill who first said that famous line, but in no way does that diminish your fine post.
I have no doubt “The Chief” was on board as well!!
He's a complainer and Canadians hate complainers. It's cultural. His not sharing solutions is even worse and a flaw.
I mean we don't hate complainers. Canadians love complaining. It's why we spend so much time doing it.
We only like it when we agree with the complainers.
How many productive alternatives would you require to be presented in order to delete your post?
Or, alternatively, is there any number that would actually convince you to change your opinion?
It's less about the quantity and more about his focus. I have a more lengthy comment elsewhere where I go through his response to a softball friendly question about 'oh the Liberals are ethical scum, how would you handle these situations?' His answer is brief, gives the impression he's never thought about it before that moment (I think I might give a better answer off the cuff, and that's concerning), and gets into no specifics whatsoever other than when talking about Justin Trudeau and the RCMP and how bad they are.
His responses are frequently like that.
I assure you, the Canadian public are eager for alternatives. They lost patience with Trudeau a long time ago. He needs to offer more than 'I don't like Justin/the Liberals' and frequently fails to do that. This especially doesn't work if you pay attention to politics and aren't a partisan Conservative, because you remember him excusing similar hijinks by his own party, and the impression left is that he either remains a partisan attack dog or just doesn't mean this any more than he meant the lunacy he used to spout back then.
I agree that his replies are occasionally unnecessarily combative. Point taken.
I agree that Canadians are open to alternatives. Mr. Poilievre & the Conservative team have offered those alternatives, and Canadians have rejected them.
I disagree, respectfully, that the last 10 years of feckless, futile, failure have yet to be properly & sufficiently litigated.
By any measure of reason, Justin Trudeau was guilty of obstruction of justice, and the RCMP made a blatant political decision not to prosecute. This is important, because it is not criticism that erodes trust in our institutions, but corruption.
When did any Conservative ever commit a cultural offence as egregious as the “blackface scandal”?
I enjoyed the chat.
Thank you for being civil, but holding Pierre Poilievre to the highest standard, while absolving the Liberals of their Lost Liberal Decade, is just careless and inexcusable.
Interesting and I think accurate analysis.
The stability desired by older conservatives was floated on the post-war economic growth fueled by public and private debt. The lifting of all boats was on a wave of relatively easy money. The real purchasing power of that money has now eroded and there is pressure to start deleveraging from the bond market.
I am puzzled by the routine focus on the increase of house prices, as the only way to access that 'wealth' is to sell and arbitrage living more cheaply somewhere else. Some do, many do not because it means uprooting themselves from friends and family. I suspect it's the feeling that a homeowner could conceivably do this that underwrites a positive sense of economic security. Being house rich and cash poor is a thing for many seniors never mind younger homeowners. Houses do not help if you have a cash flow problem and HELOCs are not really a solution.
The only way I see out of this is to remove housing as an investment asset class by getting rid of the PR tax exemption, but Canadians won't accept that and no party is willing to touch that third rail.
The problem with getting rid of the PR tax exemption is that it makes it difficult for people to move for work. If you have to pay tax when you sell your house, you will be unable to afford an equivalent new house in a new location.
I agree this is a problem, however isn't this a similar criticism to the use of long term mortgages in the U.S.? Dynamism in the workforce being impeded by people not wanting to give up a low mortgage rate if they move. I suspect this also exacerbates tensions between the work-from-home part of the population and those who need to be physically present at their work.
Very much so. Mortgage lock-in during periods of rising interest rates is a huge problem in the US.
The permanent residence capital gains exemption could only be applied going forward. Don't expect getting rid of it to bring in much tax revenue going forward as the housing market will likely move sideways to down for a long time
Wasn't really thinking of removal of the Primary Residence exemption as a revenue generating tool, but more to remove the incentive to use homes as an investment asset class which competes with other classes like stocks, ETFs, etc. Capital gains exemptions skews incentives for investment decisions.
Agreed
Poilievre regularly says: “anyone from anywhere can achieve anything. That hard work gets you a great life, with a beautiful house, on a safe street, under our proud flag,”
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how ANYONE finds this AT ALL "divisive"...
As an Atlantic Canadian, I firmly believe in three principles:
1. Red Toryism is correct.
2. This country's faults can be entirely attributed to not letting Atlantic Canada run things any more.
3. The rest of this nation has become weak and broken by abandoning fine Celtic principles, as best exemplified in Atlantic Canada.
The connection or disconnection of these principles to reality is irrelevant.
That said, the bit where the older CPC has little or no apparent view that the successful have a responsibility toward those less successful is a pretty clear sign why Red Toryism needs a comeback and why letting the West have the party was a mistake. Or, possibly, a demonstration that too many conservatives are, deep down, just in it to get theirs (a fault not exactly limited to conservatives).
Speaking as a youthish, I also note that I have a lifelong experience of pointing out problems that affect people being minimized and hushed because it makes the older authority figures uncomfortable. While this is hardly new as a problem, it also explains a lot of the backlash in conservatism. The bit where the youth finally get fed up with being told to shut up is historically inevitable.
If Red Toryism had a better economic record perhaps. But Atlantic Canada is the poorest part of both Canada and the US, and it's GDP numbers are verging on Eastern European levels.
If "equality" insists on lowering people down to the lowest common denominator, into the mediocrity so that feelings aren't hurt, no thanks. A bit of ambition and drive is required, and if that pisses off folks, just the better.
All of Canada seriously needs more ambition and drive to be honest.
Atlantic Canada used to be the economic heartland of the country. A few centuries of funding and opportunities being funnelled to Central Canada has not been kind. There's certainly other problems, don't get me wrong. But a lot of it boils down to that. Being treated as though we're a far-off wasteland full of serfs that no one could possibly ever reach by logistical networks is also annoying and not great for the economy (that's better than it used to be, but you can have amazing conversations with suppliers who do not want to supply you because you're a bunch of hicks who obviously don't actually want their product. Or you don't get technician support you're supposedly entitled to. Or hell, I remember Canada Post's mailing times used to be +1 days for Atlantic Canada. This was nowhere on the signs, and they charged you the same. Or the bit where our borrowing rates were worse for years).
Part of this, to be fair, is simply the fact that time marches on. The population centres have shifted. Atlantic Canada is a lot more out of the way than it used to be. But Atlantic Canada's economic struggles have a LOT more to do with location and historical preference by government, industry, and finance for Central Canada than with anything else. And with the classic 'primary industry' problem.
Also, Maritime Canada still has a higher GDP per capita than such economic basket cases as...Taiwan, South Korea, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Portugal, and Japan. Newfoundland has a lot of resource projects propping it up right now, but I remember how things were twenty years ago. I don't think Red Toryism proves much either way about Newfoundland.
As to ambition and drive...I have long wanted them to put a box on the census for 'which province are you FROM from.' I'm from a tiny fishing village in rural PEI. I now work in northern Manitoba. I have met a statistically improbable number of Islanders and Atlantic Canadians, because a huge portion of the population leaves temporarily or permanently in order to find work. Hell, I know multiple people from my hometown who have worked in this region specifically. There's plenty of ambition and drive. It just tends to end up leaving because of limited opportunities.
Fine and enjoyable trolling. We all have lifelong experience of pointing out problems (from our perspective) that affect people being minimized and hushed. You're not unique, rather the same as everyone else.
The youth of today are not being isolated from power, or being told to shut up anymore (and I would argue less) than the boomers were being told at the same stage of life by the generation formed by the Great Depression and World War II.
Also, if Celtic principles were so useful, why has Atlantic Canada with the world's greatest market literally on its doorstep being habitually unable to exploit its geographic advantage. Maybe a bit of humility would be more appropriate.
If it's a universal experience, then this whole 'the youth are cranky' thing seems more predictable, not less. Also, it is not a universal experience, because there is also the significant portion of the population who always do the hushing and see pointing out problems as people being difficult.
Short version re the economy? It didn't used to have difficulty exploiting the market. Around 1900 Atlantic Canada was a huge portion of the Canadian economy. Had something like 80% of the industry. Given the amount of government money and energy funneled into Ontario and Quebec in the next century, their advantages in population, plus the bit where that same market is also on THEIR doorstep, I don't think the outcome is terribly surprising in some ways.
I'd note that New England underwent a very similar process re industry leaving etc. Why they are doing better than Atlantic Canada is a very interesting question - the economies are similarly structured between New England and Atlantic Canada, even now. That said, go compare lobster prices in Atlantic Canada vs those in Maine and I'm not sure that isn't enough to make up the difference in GDP all by itself. They seem to get about 2-5 times what Canadian fishers do, and that's comparing CAD to USD. So more like...3-8 times? Other industries are harder to gauge things with, but if they're just flat out getting paid more for their primary resources that will have a huge impact in a region that relies heavily on primary resource production. I'm kind of amazed by the lack of government or academic research into this.
Thanks for a thoughtful analysis. I agree the old party labels are by and large irrelevant today.
I see age as a useful correlation with political preference but IMO it’s not a primary cause. The relevant dividing line is between the entitled and the non entitled. Entitlement is based on home ownership including the ability to inherit, holding a government or government related job, various forms of welfare/pogey (which explains the Maritimes voting patterns), and living in Quebec subsidy land vs Canada.
The benefit of age correlation is that the boomers will be dying off in the next decade or two so the tension will ease somewhat. (As a side note if
Canada had not adopted Chinese style oppression to deal with COVID the relative survival rates of the two age groups would have helped ease this age related tension sooner. Losing 2 years of employment
screwed today’s young as the author points out. ).
The other way in which the entitled real estate owners dominate the non entitled is in Canada’s interest rate policy. Keeping this rate low to minimize real estate foreclosures and jack prices up also keeps the CDN $ low which cheapens our exported products but keeps Canada inefficient. Almost the same as dumping except that’s it’s not as obvious as subsidizing exports directly so Canada has been able to sneak by. However that particular party seems to be coming to an end. US tariffs IMO will drag Canada screaming into a more competitive world and everyone will benefit eventually. Finally we will see “ Made in Canada” as a sign of pride in the same sense as “Made in the USA” does down south. Maybe Canadian Tire will be forced to sell local instead of the Chinese crap they seem to be known for.
I am halfway through watching “The American Revolution” on PBS and highly recommend it. Substitute “Canadian entitled elites” for King George III and the parallels quickly emerge. It certainly explains why the governing liberals are so obsessed with disarming the Canadian citizenry.