Tag Archives: Canadian Forces

Roundup: It’s not five percent

Posted on by

Now that the big NATO summit is over, can we please stop saying that the commitment is to five percent defence spending? Because it’s not. It’s 3.5 percent within a decade, but the whole other 1.5 percent is stuffing a whole lot of things to pad the numbers, whether it’s ports, or airports, or critical mineral mines. It’s creative accounting designed to make Trump think everyone is doing more (because he doesn’t understand NATO and tries to treat it like a protection racket), from a summit that was pretty much an exercise in placating him at all costs. (Takeaways more broadly, and for Canada specifically).

I’m much more concerned about Carney’s vague talk that this spending means trade-offs and possible cuts in other areas, but won’t give any examples of what that could look like. I’m especially concerned because of the way he’s talked about things like using AI, which is entirely in the vein of his having bought into the hype, and what that will inevitably mean are job cuts/losses, and a very, very costly mistake by government when it turns out that AI can’t do what they were sold on it doing for them, and it will compound all of those problems. I’m also not convinced about all of those future revenues that he thinks critical minerals are going to bring in, which sounds a little too much like counting chickens before they’ve hatched, and so on.

Bill C-5 in the Senate

Bill C-5 began deliberations in the Senate yesterday, and passed second reading on a pro forma voice vote, and will have study in committee of the whole today. There was a minor bit of disruption as Senator Patrick Brazeau collapsed from an unspecified “medical event” as he was asking questions to Senator Housakos following his speech as opposition leader, but we’re going to see a lot of hand-wringing about whether the Senate will actually amend the bill. There is pressure from the AFN national chief to slow the bill down, but there will be pressure from both the Government Leader and the Conservatives to pass it as quickly as possible, without amendments, and we’ll hear the usual doom arguments about how it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to recall the House of Commons if they did amend it—never mind that the world would not end if the bill didn’t pass until September.

Meanwhile, we see columnists like Tanya Talaga once again calling on the Governor General to deny royal assent to the bill, and I just can’t. This is actual journalistic malpractice. She can’t deny royal assent. It goes against every tenet of Responsible Government, and if she did, it would be a constitutional crisis of absolutely epic proportions. If it passes and you disagree with it, challenge it in the courts. That’s how the system works. But that column should not have been published, and the editors should have either told her to take out the references to the GG going outside of her authority, or the column should have been spiked. There is absolutely no excuse for this.

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy had a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the NATO summit (in a more “calibrated” wardrobe), and Trump said he would “consider” more Patriot missiles, but that means absolutely nothing.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1937826703255994570

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Questions about NATO math

Posted on by

I haven’t been able to attend Senate Question Period in years as the move to a separate building, and a shift of their usual timing to coincide with Commons QP have kept me away, as has the fact that they pretty much always rise at the same time as the Commons, which never used to be the practice, and for which I write a peevish column at the start of every summer. This year, however, they are sitting later to pass Bill C-5, so I am actually able to take it in. It’s been a long time since I’ve been here.

Taking in #SenQP for the first time in *years*.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-25T18:04:29.258Z

After statements and routine proceedings, things got underway in earnest as  Senator Housakos led off, and he raised the PBO saying that he has received little information on the NATO two percent announcement, and that they have now agreed to the five percent goal at this week’s summit, And wondered how they could take this credibly. Senator Gold lamented that there was underfunding over decades, and that this was because of a changing world, but also noted that only 3.5 percent of that was over a decade, while the other 1.5 percent was for other things. Housakos again questioned the credibility of the numbers, and Gold returned to the boilerplate assurances they are doing what they can, but also noted that DND hasn’t been able to spend their current allocations.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Danielle Smith attacks immigrants as part of “Alberta Next” panel

Posted on by

Danielle Smith is at it again. Under the rubric of going on the offensive against Ottawa, she is going to chair a series of town hall meetings dubbed the “Alberta Next Panel” to get feedback on how the province should stand up to the federal government. And if you’ve heard this before, it was about five years ago that Jason Kenney did a similar thing dubbed the “Fair Deal” panel, but he didn’t chair it himself because he had enough self-awareness to know that would be nothing more than an absolute shit show, but Smith wants to be a woman of the people. Kenney’s panel was mostly a flop, but Smith is trying to resurrect some of those unpopular ideas, along with some absolute bullshit about working with other provinces to change the constitution. She has a couple of credible people on the panel, and a couple less-credible people, but the fact that she is chairing ensures that this will be nothing short of a fiasco.

And already, the signs are bad. Really, really bad. Like one of the topics is to “just ask questions” about denying social services to immigrants who don’t have status yet, which is supposed to somehow be pushing back if the federal government is somehow forcing “the number or kind of newcomers moving to our province,” blaming them for high housing costs, high unemployment and importing “divisions and disputes,” which is an outrageous provocation. Remember that it wasn’t that long ago that the Alberta government was falling all over itself to attract displaced Ukrainians, while denouncing any plans to “redistribute” asylum-seekers that had crossed into Quebec to other provinces in order to share the burden. And why might that be? Because Ukrainians are mostly white?

https://bsky.app/profile/senatorpaulasimons.bsky.social/post/3lsfguwp55k2t

https://bsky.app/profile/senatorpaulasimons.bsky.social/post/3lsfhatsvsc2t

This is straight-up MAGA bait, because Danielle Smith has to keep that base of her party placated at all times or they will eat her face like they did Jason Kenney. In a sense, this is Kenney’s fault, because he invited these fringe and far-right assholes into the party while he chased out the centrist normies, because he wanted a “pure” conservative party who would keep the NDP out of power forever, and well, they didn’t appreciate his appeal to common sense during the pandemic, and his fighting back against them now is tinged with bitter irony because the only reason they now hold as much power and influence in the province that they do is because he put them there, rather than allowing them to fester on the sidelines. And so, Smith is going to keep this pander to them, as ugly and fascistic as it is, because they made a deal with their devils as a shortcut to getting back into power and staying there in perpetuity. And Smith is going to keep feeding the separatists in the province through this kind of inflammatory rhetoric, because she thinks they suit her purposes in trying to threaten the rest of the country as leverage for her selfish demands. It’s a grotesque situation, and she is determined to gerrymander the next election to keep it going.

I wonder what happens when you invite the worst possible fringe elements into your party because you’re mad someone else got a turn.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-23T17:09:32.466Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian ballistic missile struck Dnipro around mid-day Tuesday, killing seventeen and injuring more than 200 others; other attacks made for a total of twenty-six civilian deaths over the course of the day.

Continue reading →

Roundup: “Forcing” nothing but a press release

Posted on by

As the parliamentary cycle starts to wind down now that MPs have gone home for the summer (minus the couple who will take part in the royal assent ceremony that usually ends the Senate sitting in June), I did want to take a moment to appreciate David Reevely’s particular annoyance at the way MPs constantly use the term “forced” when describing using ordinary parliamentary procedure to get their own way.

In this particular example, where the Speaker agreed to split the vote on Bill C-5 (and no, he did not split the bill, as some have suggested—and mea culpa that I was not sufficiently clear on that in my last post), the most that the NDP accomplished here was symbolism. Yes, they could show that they voted to support one part of the bill and not the other, but the bill in its entirely goes through regardless. But again, they didn’t really “force” anything. The Speaker granted their request without a vote. This language is endemic, and the Conservatives like to use it, particularly in committee, when they would team up with the Bloc and NDP to send the committee off on some chase for new clips to harvest, but even there, simple math in a minority parliament is hardly “forcing,” because that’s pretty much a function of a hung parliament. The opposition gets to gang up on the government as a matter of course.

I get that they like to use the language to flex their political muscles, and the NDP in particular right now are desperate to show that they’re still relevant now that they have lost official party status, but maybe have some self-respect? If all you’re accomplishing is providing yourselves with new opportunities to create content for your social media rather than doing something tangible and substantive, then maybe that’s a problem that you should be looking into, especially if it’s in the process of trying to prove that you’re still relevant to the political landscape. (And also, maybe why you lost official party status). And I get that their claims that they “forced” the government to do a bunch of things during COVID earned them the praise of their existing fan-base, but they didn’t force anything then either—they pushed on an open door, and patted themselves on the back for it. (Seriously, the Liberals weren’t going to wind down those pandemic supports early, and if the NDP thinks they were the deciding factor, they have spent too long drinking their own bathwater). But no, you didn’t force anything, and stop pretending that’s what you did.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russians attacked Kyiv overnight, killing at least five and damaged the entrance to a metro station used as a bomb shelter. Russians claim to have captured the village of Zaporizhzhya in the Donetsk region. Ukrainian forces say that they are fighting 10,000 Russian soldiers inside of Russia’s Kursk region, which is preventing Russia from sending more forces into the Donetsk region. President Zelenskyy says that during the recent POW and body swaps with Russia, that Russia turned over at least twenty bodies of their own citizens (complete with passports) because they are so disorganised.

Good reads:

  • Mark Carney arrived in Brussels for both an EU and a NATO summit back-to-back. He also called for calm and diplomacy in the situation with Iran.
  • Ambassador Kirsten Hillman says that there is progress on trade talks with the US, and she sees a path forward.
  • A recent report shows that CSE inappropriately shared information on Canadians to international partners without a ministerial authorization.
  • Those promised pay raises for the military may not be an across-the-board increase, but a combination of different bonuses (because of course).
  • Here is a look at the retention crisis within the Canadian Forces.
  • Some Indigenous youth are preparing for a summer of protest over the different federal and provincial fast-track legislation.
  • The Eagle Mine in Yukon, which suffered a catastrophic contaminant release, is going up for sale.
  • Former Cabinet minister John McCallum passed away at age 75.
  • David Eby says he’s not opposed to a pipeline in northern BC, but he is opposed to one being publicly funded, especially as TMX still has plenty of capacity.
  • Kevin Carmichael reminds us that climate change is an existential economic threat and that it needs to be tackled, as MAGA politics has spooked efforts to combat it.
  • Anne Applebaum reflects on Trump’s complete lack of strategy, whether it’s with Iran, the Middle East, or anywhere.
  • Susan Delacourt and Matt Gurney debate what Poilievre has been up to since he dropped out of the spotlight, and the security of his future as leader.
  • My weekend column points out that the solution to parties hijacking their own nominations is not to demand that Elections Canada take the process over.

Odds and ends:

*laughs, cries*

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-22T21:23:58.539Z

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

Roundup: Quietly objecting to the Henry VIII clause

Posted on by

The Liberals’ “One Canada Economy” bill continues to be railroaded through Parliament without proper scrutiny, and with the worst possible excuses from ministers and parliamentary secretaries possible. “We won the election promising this” or “This is in response to a crisis”? Get lost with that nonsense. While there are Liberals who are quietly objecting to the process—particularly the speed through which the second half of the bill (i.e. the giant Henry VIII clause) are going through without actual Indigenous consultation on the legislation itself, they are absolutely correct in saying that this is going to damage the trust that they have spent a decade carefully building.

Here’s the thing. While ministers are going to committees and the Senate swearing up and down that these projects of national importance are going to respect environmental regulations and Indigenous consultation, the very text of the bill betrays that notion. The open-ended list of legislation affected by the Henry VIII clause shows that they can bypass environmental laws or even the Indian Act through regulation shows that clearly they don’t have to respect either environmental laws, or that the consultation doesn’t need to be meaningful, or engage in free, prior and informed consent. If they did want to respect those things, they wouldn’t need a giant Henry VIII clause to bypass them. And frankly the fact that the Conservatives are supporting this bill should be yet another red flag, because the Conservatives very much want to use this Henry VIII clause if they form government next before this law sunsets, and they can blame the Liberals for implementing it. It’s so stupid and they refuse to see what’s right in front of them.

And let’s not forget that you still have Danielle Smith and Scott Moe demanding that environmental legislation be repealed, as the planet is about to blow through its carbon budget to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5ºC. And when it comes to Indigenous consultation, Doug Ford rammed through a bill to make these development projects law-free zones, while falsely claiming that First Nations are coming “cap in hand” while refusing to develop resources (in a clearly racist rant), ignoring that their objections are often to do with the fact that they have repeatedly been screwed over by proponents and wind up being worse off, which is why they want revenue-sharing agreements that companies don’t want to provide. When this is the “partnership with provinces” that Carney touts, it’s really, really not building a whole lot of trust.

If Ford listened to the First Nations near the Ring of Fire, they are largely concerned that proponents haven't lived up to past promises, and are not convinced the will live up to future promises either, unless they have a revenue-sharing agreement.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-18T21:12:01.246Z

Meanwhile, 300 civil society groups are calling on the government to scrap the border bill because it has so many potential rights violations within it. The department offered some clarifications on the immigration and refugee portions, but that’s not sufficient for those groups. Citizen Lab also did an analysis of the lawful access provisions within the bill as they interface with American data-sharing laws, and they can be pretty alarming for the kinds of information that the Americans can demand that the border bill would provide them with.

The more I think about it, the more troubling #BillC2 is. The warrantless demand for "subscriber information" can include a demand to a women's shelter, abortion clinic or psychiatrist. All provide services to the public and info about services rendered really goes to the biographical core.

— David TS Fraser (@privacylawyer.ca) 2025-06-16T23:24:04.585Z

Ukraine Dispatch

More bodies were discovered after the early morning Tuesday attack on Kyiv, meaning the death toll is now at least 28. Russians hit Ukrainian troops in the Sumy region with Iskander missiles.

Good reads:

  • In the wake of the G7 Summit, here’s a bit of a stock-taking on Carney’s government so far, and there are some friction points bubbling up, especially in caucus.
  • A Treasury Board report shows that women and minorities still face pay inequities within the federal civil service.
  • StatsCan data shows that there was almost no population growth in the first quarter of the year, which is a precipitous decline (and not good in the long run).
  • You might be relieved to hear that there were no wildlife incidents during the G7 summit in Kananaskis.
  • Protesters marking the second anniversary of the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar are concerned  and frustrated about the moves to normalise diplomatic ties with India.
  • The Federal Court has denied a case by Afghan-Canadians to apply the Ukraine temporary resident rules to allow them to bring family members over.
  • The Senate has passed the Bloc’s Supply Management bill, which would seem to be at odds with trying to diversify our trade relationships.
  • Now-former Conservative MP Damien Kurek says that he wasn’t asked to step aside for Poilievre, but offered as his way to “serve.”
  • Saskatchewan is going to extend the life of their coal-fired electricity plants, because of course they are.
  • Philippe Lagassé has some more thoughts on the NATO spending goals and Canada shifting away from American procurement by degrees.
  • Paul Wells features a former PMO comms staffer talking about his experiences in dealing with reporters on the Hill, and how he approached the job.

Odds and ends:

For National Magazine, I wrote about former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Gérard La Forest, who passed away last week at age 99.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

QP: Spinning an EV conspiracy

Posted on by

The prime minister was still on his way back from hosting the G7 in Kananaskis, and the Commons was moving along without him being there on a Wednesday. The other leaders were present, and Andrew Scheer did lead off today, and he returned to the party’s mendacious talking points about the supposed “insane” ban on gas-powered vehicles (which is not actually a ban), and he claimed that favourite vehicles will be “illegal,” and that the government is pricing people out of buying a vehicle. Julie Dabrusin started with the fact there is no ban, before lamenting that the Conservatives are talking down the auto sector at a time when it is under threat from Trump tariffs. Scheer insisted there is a ban, and that it would “devastate” the auto sector, blamed Carney for not getting a deal on tariffs with Trump, and claimed the “ban” on gas-powered vehicles would kill 90,000 jobs. Dabrusin praised the auto sector and praised the fact that EVs are cheaper to operate and maintain. Scheer then tried to tie this to a conspiracy about Brookfield and insisted this was about Carney’s private interests. Evan Solomon got up to recite a script about how much the government invested in the auto sector. Pierre Paul-Hus read the French script that this was taking away choice. Dabrusin reminded him that they are not banning vehicles, and that Quebec already has regulations about access ps to EVs. Paul-Hus claimed this was about trying to “control” Canadians, and Dabrusin repeated that they are not banning gas-powered vehicles, and that EVs are cheaper to maintain. Paul-Hus said that the government tried to “control” people through the carbon levy, and wanted this scrapped as well. Dabrusin called this out as absurd, and praised the auto sector.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he decried the concessions made around the border and defence, and worried that the PM came away from the G7 “empty handed.” Dominic LeBlanc said that Carney’s meeting with Trump was “constructive,” and that he was convinced they made progress. Blanchet decried Bill C-5, and LeBlanc raised the tariff war and insisted that they would respect environmental regulations and First Nations. Blanchet insisted that C-5 wouldn’t do what they claim, and Chrystia Freeland stood up to take exception to this assertion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Auditor General on F-35s and ArriveCan

Posted on by

Yesterday saw the release of the Auditor General and Environment Commissioner’s reports, and lo, these ones actually got a tonne of media attention and took centre stage in Question Period, which is a far cry from most of their recent reports. The reason, of course, is that the topics were sexy—F-35 fighter jets and the ArriveCan app gong show in particular, the latter of which the Conservatives have been salivating over for three years now, which made the day pretty much insufferable as a result. But there was more than just those.

  • The F-35 procurement costs have ballooned because of delays, pilot shortages, infrastructure, and inflation but acknowledged the Canadian government has little control over most of these factors.
  • CBSA failed to follow procurement and security rules when it used GC Strategies to contract out work on ArriveCan, and didn’t follow-up to ensure work had been done before more contracts were awarded.
  • Public Services and Procurement has been slow to modernise and downsize office space, and turn over surplus buildings for housing.
  • Indigenous Services has failed to process Indian Act status applications within the required six-month timeline, with a backlog having grown to over 12,000 applications.
  • The climate adaptation plan is falling short, with only one of its three pillars in place and little connection between spending and results.

I’m not sure that the F-35 news is all that surprising, but it does actually work to either justify a potential move away from the platform, or to reflect increases in defence spending calculations. The GC Strategies findings are also not unexpected, but one thing the Conservatives have been failing to mention is that CBSA is an arms’-length agency, so ministers had no real say over any of its contracting practices (as the Conservatives try to insist that any minister who had carriage on the file should be fired). Meanwhile, their narrative that this was somehow about “Liberal friends” was never mentioned in the report, nor was there any mention about partisan considerations, or indication that the firm had any connection to the government, so these are just rage-bait accusations used solely for the performance art, which is how most things go with these guys.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2025-06-10T21:22:14.366Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Tuesday’s attack from Russia was one of its largest strikes on Kyiv, which also hit civilian targets in Odesa, and Kharkiv was subjected to a nine-minute-long drone attack that killed at least two and injured 54. Another prisoner swap took place yesterday, this time for an undisclosed number of sick and wounded soldiers.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A big defence commitment?

Posted on by

Yesterday, at Fort York in Toronto, prime minister Mark Carney announced that Canada would meet its NATO commitment of two percent of GDP by the end of next fiscal year instead of by 2030, in part through use of greater pay, more funds for sustainment, support for the defence industry, and some good ol’ creative accounting. Carney prefaced this by making a very real point about the changing nature of America’s place in the world: “The United States is beginning to monetize its hegemony, charging for access to its markets and reducing its relative contribution to our collective security.”

One of the big question marks has to do with the status of the Coast Guard, and how it gets folded into the calculation around defence spending—there were mixed messages on whether it stays under Department of Fisheries and Oceans, of if it will be moved into Department of National Defence (though there is also an argument for it to go to Public Safety), and the question of whether or not to arm those ships is a fraught one because of the training requirements for armaments. It sounds like there will be things like CSE’s cyber-capability being counted as part of this calculation as well, which again, seems to be more fudging numbers that we typically accused other nations of doing while we were more “pure” in terms of what we counted toward our spending commitments, and that seems to be going away.

I would add that while we get a bunch of competing narratives around the target, whether it’s the Conservatives’ memory-holing the fact that they cut defence spending to below one percent of GDP (in order to achieve a false balance on the books in time for the 2015 election), or the notion that we are nothing more than freeloaders in NATO, we should keep reminding people that even with lower per-capita defence spending, we have been punching above our weight taking on the tough missions in NATO (Kandahar, leading a multi-country brigade in Latvia) where as other allies who have met their two percent targets don’t contribute (looking at you, Greece). A poor metric of spending is not a good indicator of contribution, but it has created a whole false narrative that we should be correcting, but that’s too much work for the pundit class, who are more interested in hand-wringing and calling Justin Trudeau names than they are in looking at our actual contributions. (Here’s a timeline of the spending target melodrama).

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia made another massive overnight attack against Ukraine, launching 479 drones and twenty missiles of various types, targeting the western and central parts of the county. Another prisoner swap did go ahead yesterday.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1932086386145841186

Continue reading →

QP: A specious connection between food prices and a budget

Posted on by

The prime minister was out at Fort York, having made his big defence spending announcement, while the opposition was having their first allotted Supply Day in the Commons, with a nonsense motion calling for a budget because of food price inflation, blaming it on government spending when that’s not even remotely correct. 

Even though Andrew Scheer was present, he didn’t lead off, leading that up to Michael Barrett, who signalled to their motion, and demanded a budget that will bring down grocery prices (How? Price controls?) François-Philippe Champagne assured him that there will be a budget in the fall, and said it was ironic that the Conservatives consistently voted against measures to help people. Barrett claimed that the savings from the tax cut would be “vapourised” by “inflationary spending,” and demanded a budget again. Champagne said that they will always side with Canadians, like they sided with children to give them a national school food programme, or seniors with dental care, or families with child care. John Brassard took over to give the same mendacious framing of food price inflation, to which Wayne Long praised their cutting the consumer carbon levy. Brassard repeated the line about tripling food price inflation, and Long praised the headline inflation number, the workforce participation number, and the triple-A credit rating. Luc Berthold cited the “food professor” to blame food price inflation on government spending in French, to which Champagne pointed out that the Conservatives voted against any measures to help Canadians. Berthold repeated the same falsehoods to demand a budget, and Champagne retorted that the responsible thing to do was to cut taxes which they did.

Once again confused about all these questions in QP about food prices.Eliminating the carbon tax was supposed to take care of that.

— Aaron Wherry (@aaronwherry.bsky.social) 2025-06-09T18:21:50.749Z

Christine Normandin worried that the bill on trade barriers would force a pipeline through Quebec, and demanded the bill be split apart. Chrystia Freeland said that this is a critical moment for the country, so everyone needs to work together to build one Canadian economy. Normandin called the bill a step backward for the environment and democracy, and this time, Steve MacKinnon said that this bill is a response to an economic crisis caused by the Americans. Patrick Bonin also worried about the declaratory powers in the legislation, and Dabrusin says the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Liberals believe in protecting the environment. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: More provincial buck-passing, FCM edition

Posted on by

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities had their big conference in Ottawa over the past couple of days, and there were a host of mayors and councillors on the Hill to meet with MPs. Yesterday afternoon, Mark Carney addressed their conference to basically give the same speech he’s been giving for the past couple of weeks about things like “moving to delay to delivery,” and so on. But I did find it interesting that as part of this address to the FCM, he essentially told them that he’ll be too busy with nation-building projects to reform municipal funding structures.

It’s kind of funny, but at the same time, I have to ask how that’s actually his job, or the job of the federal government at all. Cities are creatures of provincial legislation. If you want to reform their funding structures, the provinces need to sit down and hammer that out, unless you want to start amending the constitution, and I’m pretty sure that nobody wants to open that particular Pandora’s Box (which, incidentally, was not a box but a jar). We could let cities collect their own income or sales taxes, or other forms of financing that would be better than simply property taxes, but provinces refuse, and in some cases, have specifically legislated against it. And we’ve known for decades now that cities have funding challenges that they need something to be done about, but have provinces responded? Of course not. They simply demand the federal government send them more money.

With this in mind, Toronto mayor Olivia Chow was also here for the FCM meeting, and she says she is encouraged by Carney’s sense of urgency on tackling the housing crisis, but again, she too is here calling for the federal government to directly intervene with money. One thing she has proposed is for necessary infrastructure to build more housing, for the federal government to basically pay the municipality’s one-third share (so they essentially pay two-thirds and the province pay the other third), and it’s just so infuriating. The federal government is not the purse for every other jurisdiction. Provinces have the very same revenue-generating tools as the federal government does, but they refuse to use them because they would rather beg for money and let the federal government be the bad guy with their taxes than the province. This kind of absolute immaturity is just exhausting, and it’s one of the reasons why things just aren’t getting done in this country.

Or ever, if we're being honest.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-05-30T13:30:00.766Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s massive drone attack overnight Thursday injured two people in Kharkiv, and hit a town that sits on the border with Romania, which is a NATO member.

Continue reading →