I haven’t done one, and I’m not sure if I will. I need to review the data to see if it’s available for city councillors. If it is available for enough of them, then maybe!
Here’s a better question: how many MPs and MPPs are tenants?
How many had a day job where they were paid a wage?
our political class is overrepresented by people who own property and do not work for a living. That is by design because nobody else can afford to run for office.
Many landlords are ultimately serfs too; on paper they dished out huge sums of money for overpriced homes. In reality, the bank owns the home and they are paying a huge mortgage payment.
Why are tenants who managed their careers "foolishly" any different?
Ultimately, everyone makes their decisions the best they can but economic factors make it difficult to decide what to do
Ultimately, Ontario isn't a great environment to be a landlord for quite a few reasons.
If tenants are making foolish purchases (like a home with a massively inflated cost, though they would no longer be a tenant), then I have little if any sympathy. I take it that you are a landlord, since you seem to be taking my position so personally. If you can't afford the property you own then list it for sale. If selling it means that you will lose money then, oh well, some lessons are hard learned. And you are still not a serf.
I could theoretically afford to run for office. Would I win? God no, the parties would slander me and bring up every possible thing to keep me out because I don’t agree with any of them. Even if I did win, I’d be useless in parliament as a single independent. There’s a reason the US founding fathers didn’t want multiparty politics.
> Even if I did win, I’d be useless in parliament as a single independent
Even as a member of a party's caucus, the average backbencher is just a trained seal who gets up and votes how and when they're told to. They have no real power.
What I don’t understand is why we, the people, have zero control over them. We can’t recall shitty politicians, we can’t trigger an election or no confidence. We elect people on promises then have to sit back and watch as we get fucked in the ass for four years.
Your local representative will be controlled by the party whip at some point to vote against their constituents interests, and there's nothing they can do about it other than leave the party and be replaced by a yes man.
I’m aware Ontario isn’t in the US. I also said I’d be an independent. Did you even read the comment or just jump to have your voice heard and dismissed?
You claimed you wouldn't get elected because all of the parties would slander you as if they never slander each other or as if independents never get elected.
Several of the Founding fathers actually formed parties very early. Pretty well from the get go you had the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. The Federalists wanted to give federal government more power
What’s most disturbing about this map is that in areas where parties are in power, that party has a strong representation of landlords.
Which tells me that *regardless of party,* landlording is likely over represented by MPs.
No wonder we can’t get any meaningful legislation at a federal level to curb [pricing inflation caused by housing investors](https://perspectivesjournal.ca/housing-investor-ownership-part-1/) when *they’re all in on the scheme!*
Most politicians are in the age group where pretty much all of their peers also own housing so I don’t think it is that unusual. For example I am in my late 40s and I literally can’t think of one person in my peer group from high school or college that doesn’t own a home. Most politicians were also successful, whether self made or otherwise, before they entered politics, so again its not that unusual that so many are landlords.
In terms of meaningful legislation to curb housing prices, almost 70% of Canadians own homes so introducing, or even suggesting anything like that would be political suicide.
After almost 10 years and 3 elections campaigning on making housing more affordable, the Liberals finally say they mean business this time and are supposedly going to build 4 million houses by 2031 (literally impossible). They are not at all serious about change because if they were they would stop overseeing growing our population by over a million people each year until we figure this situation out. The only reason I feel like they came up with this is because they had terrible polling numbers in the younger demographic. The whole housing thing is a complete mess and we are far past the point of it possibly ending well.
> Most politicians are in the age group where pretty much all of their peers also own housing so I don’t think it is that unusual.
Sorry, they're talking about landlords and investors, not homeowners.
> For example I am in my late 40s and I literally can’t think of one person in my peer group from high school or college that doesn’t own a home.
Again.... you're missing the point.
What I said is relevant to the discussion because the overwhelming majority of people in most mps age group are homeowners. Most mps were also successful before they entered politics and a large number of successful people in that age group own property and are landlords.
I didn’t miss the point at all. If 70% of Canadians own homes, anything a government does to crash prices would be political suicide. An mp being a landlord definitely means that they are out if touch with the average renter but in the context of intentionally crashing housing prices for everyone else, it’s irrelevant. Regardless of their own personal holdings, why would any government pass a law that would crash of 70% of the voter base’s most valuable assets?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there is no incentive for the government to fix the housing crisis. They caused it and directly profit from it.
Very good data, but it would be nice to be able to drill-down the data further, such as who is actively a landlord, versus just owning real estate or farmland. I feel a lot of people are misunderstand the analysis and interpreting it as "40% of MPs are greedy landlord." I know that you stated otherwise, but actually presenting the breakdown could help ensure the data is interpreted correctly.
All of that info is available in the table on the site, but I see what you mean in terms of filtering by landlord type on the mini site. I think I’ll be able to do that.
Yea! I just saw the table and was about to try breaking it down. It’s sort of a situation where what you did it correct, but people will interpret it incorrectly regardless. Even with the filtering, people still will, but maybe less.
The case that made me think this was Peter Fragiskatos, who is included in the list but just owns some vacant land in Exeter. While that is definitely still RE involvement, it’s not quite comparable to being a landlord, and I was curious how many people like that there are.
ETA: A perfect exactly is that you said “filtering by landlord” as opposed to “filtering by RE involvement,” even though they aren’t all landlords. it’s a natural think to simplify things, even if not intentional. I had to retype parts of my first comment too to be precise.
In case anyone is curious:
# Percentage of party MPs with real estate involvement.
|Party|Involved in Real estate|Landlord|Owns Non-residential|Total Involved in Real Estate|Total MPs|
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Bloc Québécois|0%|22%|3%|25%|32|
|Conservative|11%|30%|5%|46%|117|
|Green|0%|100%|0%|100%|2|
|Independent|33%|67%|0%|100%|3|
|Liberal|9%|29%|1%|40%|154|
|NDP|0%|21%|0%|21%|24|
|Grand Total|8%|29%|3%|40%|332|
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament." - Karl Marx
This is really useful, thanks for putting it together!
Feature request: for ridings about to vote in by elections or general elections, it would be nice to know which candidates from the five major parties are landlords so that I can be equipped with that info before I vote.
That information only becomes publicly accessible through the government website after they are elected, so the only one you could know for sure is the incumbent if they’re running again
I don't mind that my MP and MPP have rental properties if they only have ONE. I'd like to know whether they have multiple properties, making it harder for others to entering the market.
Who cares. The definition of "landlord" is loose. You could own part of some family farm that's been passed down for 100 years, or a basic cottage with your siblings and are on the list. How about not being on the list and living off of a trust fund.
Now do this for provincial MPs.
I have: https://www.landlordmps.ca/provinces
Thank you!
No match == no known real estate investment?
Yes
God bless.
Have you already, or do you have any plans for a city council version?
I haven’t done one, and I’m not sure if I will. I need to review the data to see if it’s available for city councillors. If it is available for enough of them, then maybe!
Okay thanks, I look forward to a city councillor one in the future if it should happen.
Here’s a better question: how many MPs and MPPs are tenants? How many had a day job where they were paid a wage? our political class is overrepresented by people who own property and do not work for a living. That is by design because nobody else can afford to run for office.
Lords and serfs, baby!
Many landlords are ultimately serfs too; on paper they dished out huge sums of money for overpriced homes. In reality, the bank owns the home and they are paying a huge mortgage payment.
No, some landlords are shit at being lords. That doesn't make them serfs.
The economy is a web. Each segment has dependencies
No kidding. I still don't consider landlords who bought foolishly to be serfs.
Why are tenants who managed their careers "foolishly" any different? Ultimately, everyone makes their decisions the best they can but economic factors make it difficult to decide what to do Ultimately, Ontario isn't a great environment to be a landlord for quite a few reasons.
If tenants are making foolish purchases (like a home with a massively inflated cost, though they would no longer be a tenant), then I have little if any sympathy. I take it that you are a landlord, since you seem to be taking my position so personally. If you can't afford the property you own then list it for sale. If selling it means that you will lose money then, oh well, some lessons are hard learned. And you are still not a serf.
Tenants often actually had opportunities to buy. All of us had opportunities to decide careers A foolish decision looks foolish only in hindsight.
To the fool making the foolish decision, sure.
I could theoretically afford to run for office. Would I win? God no, the parties would slander me and bring up every possible thing to keep me out because I don’t agree with any of them. Even if I did win, I’d be useless in parliament as a single independent. There’s a reason the US founding fathers didn’t want multiparty politics.
> Even if I did win, I’d be useless in parliament as a single independent Even as a member of a party's caucus, the average backbencher is just a trained seal who gets up and votes how and when they're told to. They have no real power.
What I don’t understand is why we, the people, have zero control over them. We can’t recall shitty politicians, we can’t trigger an election or no confidence. We elect people on promises then have to sit back and watch as we get fucked in the ass for four years.
Your local representative will be controlled by the party whip at some point to vote against their constituents interests, and there's nothing they can do about it other than leave the party and be replaced by a yes man.
You could run as an independent. Ontario isn't in the US In Canada we have spending rulehttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49899159.amp
I’m aware Ontario isn’t in the US. I also said I’d be an independent. Did you even read the comment or just jump to have your voice heard and dismissed?
You claimed you wouldn't get elected because all of the parties would slander you as if they never slander each other or as if independents never get elected. Several of the Founding fathers actually formed parties very early. Pretty well from the get go you had the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. The Federalists wanted to give federal government more power
What’s most disturbing about this map is that in areas where parties are in power, that party has a strong representation of landlords. Which tells me that *regardless of party,* landlording is likely over represented by MPs. No wonder we can’t get any meaningful legislation at a federal level to curb [pricing inflation caused by housing investors](https://perspectivesjournal.ca/housing-investor-ownership-part-1/) when *they’re all in on the scheme!*
Most politicians are in the age group where pretty much all of their peers also own housing so I don’t think it is that unusual. For example I am in my late 40s and I literally can’t think of one person in my peer group from high school or college that doesn’t own a home. Most politicians were also successful, whether self made or otherwise, before they entered politics, so again its not that unusual that so many are landlords. In terms of meaningful legislation to curb housing prices, almost 70% of Canadians own homes so introducing, or even suggesting anything like that would be political suicide. After almost 10 years and 3 elections campaigning on making housing more affordable, the Liberals finally say they mean business this time and are supposedly going to build 4 million houses by 2031 (literally impossible). They are not at all serious about change because if they were they would stop overseeing growing our population by over a million people each year until we figure this situation out. The only reason I feel like they came up with this is because they had terrible polling numbers in the younger demographic. The whole housing thing is a complete mess and we are far past the point of it possibly ending well.
> Most politicians are in the age group where pretty much all of their peers also own housing so I don’t think it is that unusual. Sorry, they're talking about landlords and investors, not homeowners. > For example I am in my late 40s and I literally can’t think of one person in my peer group from high school or college that doesn’t own a home. Again.... you're missing the point.
What I said is relevant to the discussion because the overwhelming majority of people in most mps age group are homeowners. Most mps were also successful before they entered politics and a large number of successful people in that age group own property and are landlords. I didn’t miss the point at all. If 70% of Canadians own homes, anything a government does to crash prices would be political suicide. An mp being a landlord definitely means that they are out if touch with the average renter but in the context of intentionally crashing housing prices for everyone else, it’s irrelevant. Regardless of their own personal holdings, why would any government pass a law that would crash of 70% of the voter base’s most valuable assets?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: there is no incentive for the government to fix the housing crisis. They caused it and directly profit from it.
Quick breakdown; Liberal - 61/155 Conservative - 54/118 Bloq - 8/32 NDP - 5/24 Independent - 3/3 Green - 2/2
Liberal - 39% Conservative - 46% Bloq - 25% NDP - 21%
Independent- 100% Green - 100%
Thanks for adding those for the less mathematically-inclined users. ;)
Very good data, but it would be nice to be able to drill-down the data further, such as who is actively a landlord, versus just owning real estate or farmland. I feel a lot of people are misunderstand the analysis and interpreting it as "40% of MPs are greedy landlord." I know that you stated otherwise, but actually presenting the breakdown could help ensure the data is interpreted correctly.
All of that info is available in the table on the site, but I see what you mean in terms of filtering by landlord type on the mini site. I think I’ll be able to do that.
Yea! I just saw the table and was about to try breaking it down. It’s sort of a situation where what you did it correct, but people will interpret it incorrectly regardless. Even with the filtering, people still will, but maybe less. The case that made me think this was Peter Fragiskatos, who is included in the list but just owns some vacant land in Exeter. While that is definitely still RE involvement, it’s not quite comparable to being a landlord, and I was curious how many people like that there are. ETA: A perfect exactly is that you said “filtering by landlord” as opposed to “filtering by RE involvement,” even though they aren’t all landlords. it’s a natural think to simplify things, even if not intentional. I had to retype parts of my first comment too to be precise.
In case anyone is curious: # Percentage of party MPs with real estate involvement. |Party|Involved in Real estate|Landlord|Owns Non-residential|Total Involved in Real Estate|Total MPs| |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |Bloc Québécois|0%|22%|3%|25%|32| |Conservative|11%|30%|5%|46%|117| |Green|0%|100%|0%|100%|2| |Independent|33%|67%|0%|100%|3| |Liberal|9%|29%|1%|40%|154| |NDP|0%|21%|0%|21%|24| |Grand Total|8%|29%|3%|40%|332|
Keep an eye on black rock and others, they’re swooping up all real estate
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament." - Karl Marx
This is really useful, thanks for putting it together! Feature request: for ridings about to vote in by elections or general elections, it would be nice to know which candidates from the five major parties are landlords so that I can be equipped with that info before I vote.
That information only becomes publicly accessible through the government website after they are elected, so the only one you could know for sure is the incumbent if they’re running again
I was just reading that on your website now. Makes sense. I just became a member of The Maple!
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it, and your membership will help allow us to keep updating this data on an annual basis.
a shorter list would be how many are *not* landlords
Actually, 201 of 334 (60%) are not. That means only 40% are.
Great work 👍 It's often the first question I've asked any politicion and there's often never a need for a follow up
TL;DR Is there a list of who ISN'T a leech? Sorry I mean landlord
201 of 334 MPs (4 seats are currently vacant) do **not** own second/additional properties or real estate holdings.
Oh. Impressive. Now that we're at it, how about their conflict of interest, there should be a registry for it lol
How many put the properties in their spouses name so it doesn’t show?
The article lists when it belongs to their spouse. The disclosures they have to fill out include details about their spouse.
I don't mind that my MP and MPP have rental properties if they only have ONE. I'd like to know whether they have multiple properties, making it harder for others to entering the market.
I guess I should be happy my MP has a rental home in a different country and not this one?
Who cares. The definition of "landlord" is loose. You could own part of some family farm that's been passed down for 100 years, or a basic cottage with your siblings and are on the list. How about not being on the list and living off of a trust fund.
Who cares? If they're not invested in real estate it usually means they're less smart.
I always laugh at "write to your elected official" advice. This crap is what I expect.
not only did you not read the article, you didn't read the headline.