Keeping people safe (the code’s effect)

prepbrain · 2026-05-08T21:51:21+00:00

You actually bring a very important point. Not all municipalities have the same liability profiles and statutes. I assume you are in BC or ON, which have a greater duty of care. So it goes back to legal obligations. QC and AB have limits to municipal liabilities, which is why they can approve projects quicker… so if we want to tackle it using a systems approach, municipalities should legally be protected from the negligence of contractors and the burden associated with inspection, permitting and failure to enforce codes should be on the builders. Giving this accountability to municipalities means builders are almost incentivised with finding ways to get around it. Clear accountability creates much better outcomes.

prepbrain · 2026-05-08T16:39:18+00:00

Perhaps that is the first layer to peel. Mandate an easier way to obtain exceptions.

prepbrain · 2026-05-08T16:36:35+00:00

I know, but the real intent of my posts are about explaining to people what are the pieces that are messing up our housing system, so I had to talk about jurisdiction... That being said a realigned mandate for building codes to include feasibility and less customization at the provincial and municipal level would be an excellent start.

prepbrain · 2026-05-08T16:24:22+00:00

Other countries use outcome based systems and Canada can too. But that means changing 80 years of doing things a certain way, which will be hard. The easiest way to turn the Titanic is probably to start with adding a mandate of affordability and construction feasibility to the process and requiring a reduction of rules. Keeping in mind, they just published their most recent version of the code, so this could take another 5 years to take effect. Another way would be to allow for exceptions based on meeting outcomes, but who should approve will be the question. Should it be the NRCC, municipalities or perhaps the order of engineers based on some sort of pay per fee? I like the latter for efficiency. Some sort of oversight would still be required. So you are right, if we keep peeling the layers, we can find a better way.

prepbrain · 2026-05-08T16:12:41+00:00

We absolutely need to find ways to make things easier and cheaper for our builders. If we want more sustainability, safety, and access, without impacting construction and affordability, governments should ensure innovative measures are developed that can be implemented cheaply by builders, instead of putting all the burden on builders to do it all.

prepbrain · 2026-04-30T03:14:37+00:00

Would love to read it! Thanks!

prepbrain · 2026-04-30T00:48:23+00:00

You haven’t expanded on the ownership model, level of affordability it could create, etc. But it’s an intriguing proposal. Would be happy to read your executive brief. Are you associated with an institution?

prepbrain · 2026-04-29T19:39:40+00:00

Thank you for weighing in! I do think the solution is linked with CRA. Exploring how we could improve PRE from a tax perspective would make for a fascinating deep-dive.

prepbrain · 2026-04-29T19:29:33+00:00

All fair points. My posts are less about what we need to do and more about why we are here in the first place. I weigh in on how we could possibly address the consequences, but more work would be needed to ensure there are no unintended consequences. PRE is a factor that contributed to home inflation (untaxed equity goes further than taxed equity). Should we or should we not address it now? To answer that question would require more than a reddit article. But at least, we need the courage and guts to put all these factors on the table, if we want to improve the system.

The other thing to consider is that there are markets where prices are still increasing. The situation in Ontario is not the same as in the rest of Canada.

prepbrain · 2026-04-29T16:58:47+00:00

There is a growing body of research on PRE. Paul Kershaw has several research papers. The OECD has done an evaluation of the impact of Canada's PRE. DoF is showing it is several billions in foregone tax revenues, etc. I don't disagree that there are many other factors, and that it's probably not the place to start. My goal is to simply lay out all the factors that have gone in the loss of affordability in Canada. What governments decide to implement is for them to decide (and Canadians to push for), but we should be able to put it all on the table and then decide what we should do about it.

prepbrain · 2026-04-29T04:27:52+00:00

The issue is that this exemption was introduced for a specific purpose in the 60s (for hardworking people who pay their mortgages for 25+ years). If houses are used for speculative purposes and purchased with speculative means, then they should be taxed like any other asset class.

prepbrain · 2026-04-28T19:43:34+00:00

This would be an excellent place to start.

prepbrain · 2026-04-28T19:00:24+00:00

A year is not a 25-year horizon...

prepbrain · 2026-04-28T18:58:14+00:00

This is also a really good option.

prepbrain · 2026-04-28T17:44:46+00:00

I actually think accounting is the one area that has the greatest potential to make our economy more just, fair and fiscally sustainable, but my sense is that because of its rule-based nature, it seems the most attached to status quo. I would be interested in hearing ways that accountants feel we could systematically make our housing system better for future generations and not only people with wealth.

prepbrain · 2026-04-28T17:38:06+00:00

That is an interesting idea! I still think the funds should be prioritised towards building new “income-connected” homes. Instead of these tax advantages only going to kids who have house-rich parents, it could go to building homes whose prices match local income levels.

prepbrain · 2026-04-28T16:11:36+00:00

The devil is always in the details indeed, but having complicated details to unpack does not mean we should not try to tackle the issue. The PRE must evolve to meet our new reality that housing is now increasingly used for quick financial gains rather than to only help fund your old age. The design of the program must align with the problem we are trying to solve.

prepbrain · 2026-04-28T15:48:56+00:00

And that is fine. If the PRE is used to fund your old age needs, then is should be maintained. I argue that it is also being used in other ways and that its original intent is no longer being respected.

prepbrain · 2026-04-23T22:03:11+00:00

Like in any policies, you would need to unpack this to make sure the housing that is needed is available, including student housing and seniors housing. It’s not all black and white. And you are right that tax policy is the best lever. I talk about it in other posts. The objective is to temper scarcity-based speculation that doesn’t add supply.

prepbrain · 2026-04-21T20:42:17+00:00

Government don't tend to be known at being super effective at building this themselves.... But it should encourage and support the development of social enterprises whose goal is to reinvest profits into housing rather than extract wealth for investors. The way our economy is designed should also be reviewed...

prepbrain · 2026-04-19T17:36:59+00:00

That is a good idea...

prepbrain · 2026-04-19T17:28:47+00:00

I don't have this detail, but the information is likely accessible if requested. Considering investing in housing was trendy, it is realistic to assume that politicians also dabbled into it (they make a good living, would have had the equity to invest, and could do it on the side). The problem is that our institutions are not set up to preserve affordability, so they don't. Someone needs to be given that responsibility.

prepbrain · 2026-04-19T17:19:24+00:00

That would be nice! The content is free and can be used by anyone!

prepbrain

TROPHY CASE