As someone who lives in Peterborough, and has to look at the burned-out husk of the Baskin Robbins Ice Cream building every day and wonders "Why the hell isn't this housing?", I can agree with all of this.
Considering how reflexively partisan Poillievre is, and how much he's encouraged unthinking partisanship among the conservative voting base, I can't see him supporting much of anything Carney does.
The concern is that Carney pulls a Starmer, do conservative things anyways, and just make right-wing nonsense the default.
And that a very large number of the people who did very well put of the collapse of the USSR were former communist party officials who got in early on raiding the USSR's corpse.
Trump isn't acting on behalf of the USSR in general, but he definitely is funded by and owes favours to older wealthy Russians.
This is also good counterpoint to the "if we tax the rich, they'll leave!" argument because, when the supply leaves, the demand doesn't. Just like here, where Canadian (and central/south American, European, African, Asian, etc) products step up to fill the gap, if a rich person fucks off because we're asking them to pay their fair share, there's a really good chance that someone less greedy will step in to fill the gap because the demand is still there.
We spend far, far too much time lionizing the supply side of the economy, but it's the demand-side that really matters.
Are we going to either ensure people get paid enough to afford houses, or build homes that people can afford to live in?
No?
Then no, it won't get fixed. Right now, the market is making too much money off of exacerbating the problem, and the idea of government providing solutions went out of fashion in 1992.
Intel, here's your big chance!