Tag Archives: Housing

Disparity in premiers’ reactions to new tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

There was more reaction to the threatened Section 338 tariffs yesterday, particular from the premiers, who were meeting in Charlottetown, though those reactions were mixed. Doug Ford was full of bluster and saying that if we cut off oil and potash, we could “dismantle” the US, while Danielle Smith and Scott Moe, true to form, insisted that no, we mustn’t use those products for retaliation. Prime minister Mark Carney had a curb-side press conference to say that he spoke with Trump this morning and that they will “intensify negotiations,” whatever that is supposed to mean, because apparently the thinking is that we can still come to some kind of trade agreement with the US? Even though there is no agreement to be had, and never will be? I also note that if you look at how provinces are affected by these threatened tariffs that Alberta and Saskatchewan are barely threatened at all—it’s quite clear that a lot of these were chosen to exacerbate divisions.

There's a lot of variation across #cdnecon in exposure to the new 50% U.S. tariffs (on August 19). Here's a preliminary estimate of the share of exports affected (based on HS6, so a slight over-estimate). BC/ON/QC most exposed. Others far less so.

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe.bsky.social) 2026-07-21T19:53:38.355840Z

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mr6jtyqv522e

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3mr6jxnjdk22e

News In Photo:

— The Beaverton (@thebeaverton.com) 2026-07-21T18:13:17.448Z

Meanwhile, senior officials have confirmed that what Carney said about the bridge agreement was wrong, and that the revenue-sharing is tolls minus operations (like snow clearing) and not post-debt repayment, meaning that it’s likely he was being misleading in the media. But in light of the latest threats, the Canadian government has decided not to attend any kind of ribbon-cutting when it opens next week, because why should they?

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I delve into why the government’s Digital Safety Act is very likely unconstitutional, and completely unworkable.

Continue reading →

Misunderstanding the differences between Canadian and Westminster cultures

Posted on by

Over the weekend, the CBC put out a facile piece that tried to examine why the UK has an easier time ditching prime ministers than Canada does, and in the process, missed most of the important nuances that make our systems different. The issue is not “party discipline,” because people underestimate how strong it actually is within the UK, even though you have rebel backbenchers on a more frequent basis than you do here, but the biggest difference remains the fact that it’s a holdover from how the leadership selection process worked until recently in the UK. Up until about a decade ago, the UK still maintained the proper Westminster tradition of the party caucus deciding on the leader, and that meant the caucus also had the power to remove said leader. When they moved to a more Canadian-style system of party membership selection of leaders, the holdover from caucus firing remains strong, whereas it died in Canada by the 1920s—especially when Mackenzie King got into a scandal and told his caucus that they didn’t elect him, so they couldn’t fire him.

The other part about the piece that irked me, and will continue to irk me every time it’s brought up is the (garbage) Reform Act, and the false belief that it alone can empower MPs to turf a party leader. That’s completely untrue—MPs have never needed special legislation to give themselves permission to vote non-confidence in their leader. Michael Chong dreamed up this belief when he promoted the Act, and instead made it harder for MPs to challenge their leaders because he put in thresholds and processes that actually make it harder for MPs, not easier. And no, the Liberals didn’t have a hard time ousting Justin Trudeau because they didn’t sign onto the (garbage) Reform Act—they had a hard time because the members of his caucus who wanted him out were trying to convince him to go willingly using polling data to back up their claims, or to call a vote, rather than simply organising a vote on their own, which they could have done if they were serious about it. And in the end, it took Chrystia Freeland’s public resignation to force Trudeau’s hand. The (garbage) Reform Act remains the greatest democratic con in Canadian political history since the original sin of leadership conventions in 1919, and I wish the media would stop mouthing all of the lies about this egregious attack on the rights of MPs.

My Latest:

My weekend column points out how ridiculous it is that the government needs to resort to fundraising in order to make an official residence liveable.

Continue reading →

A grab-bag of Carney answers

Posted on by

Prime minister Mark Carney held a press conference yesterday to pat himself on the back for his government’s accomplishments over the spring sitting, but as with most of these exercises, the real interest was in his responses to questions, which he doesn’t do very often. So, what did we learn?

  • That big call with Trump this week with the extremely vague readout was mostly about Iran and NATO, and not about trade.
  • We’re still a long way away from any kind of trade deal with Trump.
  • The six upcoming by-elections will likely be spaced out.
  • We finally got more details on that condo purchase in Vancouver, which is 90 percent provincial funding/10 percent federal, and is intended as rent-to-own.
  • He will be going to Stampede, and plans to defend national unity, and is using Brexit as a cautionary tale (as well he should be).
  • We are sending aid to Venezuela after the earthquakes, and while it might be useful to have some kind of consular services there or in Iran, we’ll go through partners.

Shortly afterward, Pierre Poilievre gave his own press conference to decry the state of the Canadian economy and blame Carney for it, as though Trump wasn’t a factor, or that climate change isn’t affecting things like food prices. In fact, he pretty much admitted he’d accept a bad deal with Trump for the sake of getting a deal. So there’s that.

"It's all an illusion."

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T19:54:15.597Z

My Latest:

For National Magazine, I delve into the Supreme Court of Canada’s increasing caseload, and why the Chief Justice’s explanation of cleared backlogs doesn’t hold.

Continue reading →

The totally avoidable condo “bailout” meltdown

Posted on by

There’s been a meltdown happening in certain circles, and Pierre Poilievre’s among them, about the federal government supposedly spending $3.2 billion to “bail out condo developers” as they seek to convert 2200 vacant condo units into affordable housing units. The details are pretty much entirely wrong, thanks to a poorly worded PMO communiqué and flawed reporting, and it’s just spiralling out of control.

To wit, the condo acquisition is not $3.2 billion, as that figure is about expanding “housing-enabling” infrastructure. There is no dollar figure attached in the release about how much they are spending on the vacant condos, other than it’s part of the Build Canda Homes funding envelope to acquire affordable housing. And it took days for the minister responsible, Gregor Robertson, to actually explain this—over Twitter, no less—and not do a coordinated media blitz (and I’m given to understand that those media outlets have not offered corrections on the initial reporting). This is absolutely appalling, and it’s yet another own-goal by a government whose arrogance is exerting itself at every opportunity.

https://twitter.com/MikePMoffatt/status/2069774302690279805

It's weeks like this where I fear for Canada's future. We have governments putting out housing plans they can't explain, and a media that struggles to report even basic facts, and won't correct their errors.I'm not sure how Canadians can be expected to trust our institutions.

— Dr. Mike P. Moffatt (@mikepmoffatt.bsky.social) 2026-06-25T03:19:10.000Z

And Moffatt is absolutely correct here. This is an absolute clusterfuck that the government could have avoided if they actually bothered to explain (and I’m undecided if this is a “can’t explain” or a “won’t explain” situation), and not simply insisted that the “just trust me” approach is going to keep working for them. It obviously won’t, and they need to start recognizing that before it becomes a serious problem for their voters (and that’ll come at them really fast if they don’t change course).

My Latest:

My column draws a couple of lessons for Canada from what we saw of Keir Starmer’s resignation in the UK.

Continue reading →

QP: Call it “Soliloquy Period”

Posted on by

For the final QP of the spring sitting, the PM was once again absent—back from France, but off again to Vancouver to watch a World Cup match. Priorities. Pierre Poilievre was present for the first time this week, and he led off in French, to read a soliloquy about our woeful economic situation, and demanded the prime minister defend it. Steven MacKinnon got up to pat himself on the back for delivering 21 pieces of legislation and the supposed biggest criminal justice reform ever. (Really?) Poilievre launched into the old tactic of the question being for the prime minister and that he wasn’t answering, and after being cautioned by the Speaker, Poilievre asked when the recession would end. François-Philippe Champagne go up to say that he was surprised that Poilievre didn’t thank the PM for the success at the G7. Poilievre switched to English to repeat his first question, framing intact, and MacKinnon repeated his same response as before. Poilievre declare that they plan to spend the summer fighting the “Liberal recession” and he launched into a his demand that the prime minister standup to defend it. Champagne got back up and patted himself on the back for increased investment, and recited a couple of slogans along the way. Poilievre accused this of being a “hallucination” and railed about the shrinking economy, and again demanded the PM stand up. Patty Hajdu took this as an insult to people in the skilled trades (erm, really?). Poilievre launched into another soliloquy about the supposed “recession” we are not actually in. Tim Hodgson listed the conservative premiers who are interested in working with the government. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she accused the prime minister of betraying the environment and Quebec culture, undoing a generation of struggle. MacKinnon got up to praise their “generational investment” and that the government is investing hundreds of millions in culture, and got a swipe about high-speed rail in there as well. Normandin called out the constant concessions to Trump, and the lack of respect shown to Parliament. Miller was incredulous that the Bloc were talking about betrayal when they want to destroy the country. Mario Simard took over, and repeated the same points. Joël Lightbound listed things that the Bloc were voting against.

Continue reading →

QP: Ministers not proving their ability to know their files

Posted on by

The PM was still at the G7 in France, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent, and for some reason, Branden Leslie led off with a shouted recitation of the “recession” script, and François-Philippe Champagne suggested that the Conservatives were not happy but he bought good news about the highest level of foreign direct investment and the second-fastest growth in the G7. Leslie cited people turning to GoFundMe pages to afford to live, and Champagne assured him that Canadians don’t want another clip, they want action, and he listed measures the government has taken. Gabriel Hardy took forward in French, read a weeks-ago talking point about the prime minister talking about the level of affordability before reading today’s clip-bait about GoFundMe pages. Champagne accused the Conservatives of hypocrisy for their voting against programmes to help people. Hardy suggested that people want the government to stop what’s not working, and that government spending was driving the country into recession. Lightbound suggested the number of people in Hardy’s riding getting that GST credit would disagree. Shannon Stubbs picked up the metaphorical baton to angrily read the day’s script, including the GoFundMe mention, and this time Tim Hodgson listed programmes that are getting underway. Stubbs railed about the prime minister’s in-flight catering and meandered into the “inflationary spending” talking point. Steven MacKinnon got up to wonder what the Conservatives are for if they vote against all measures to help people.

Yves Perron led for the Bloc, and complained about the programming motion on Bill C-22 and time allocation on Bill C-30. MacKinnon took a swipe at the Bloc for opposing the high-speed rail project and all of good things it would bring. Perron kept up his complaints about these “gag orders” that prevent MPs from doing their jobs, and to keep civil society from realising the abuse in those laws. MacKinnon said they would not apologise for working on the priorities of Canadians, like high-speed rail. (Erm, lawful access is not this, guys). Claude DeBellefeuille took her own crack at complaining about the motion on Bill C-22, and Lightbound said he wouldn’t apologise for taking action on things like transit…which again, is not lawful access.

Continue reading →

QP: Changing up tactics in service of a stunt

Posted on by

The PM was absent, in Toronto for an announcement before jetting off to Paris, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent. Melissa Lantsman led off, and she raised the death of a Toronto police officer earlier in the day, and asked for a government response. Gary Anandasangaree gave some words of condolence for his death. Lantsman asked which security agencies were engaged on this, as the officer was investigating the shooting of the US consulate in Toronto, and Anandasangaree listed some of the agencies, including the RCMP, involved and that this was a collaborative process. Jasraj Hallan took over, and he once again accused the prime minister of “stuffing his face” on in-flight catering and the costs associated with it, and Steven MacKinnon called for Hallan to up his game. Hallan accused the prime minister of not caring that Canadians are losing sleep because of food insecurity, and MacKinnon reminded him that we are in the midst of a trade war. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to again complain about the costs of the prime minister’s in-flight catering. MacKinnon dismissed this given how much trade and investment the prime minister brings home when he travels. Paul-Hus kept railing about the costs, and François-Philippe Champagne rose to add his voice go the condolences for the fallen officer, before repeating the assurances of the prime minister’s trade prowess.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she said that with Trump looking to give up the New NAFTA altogether, so they sacrificed Quebec culture for nothing. MacKinnon got up to take a swipe at the Bloc, ignoring the question. Normandin suggested that the strategy of weakness was not working, and this time Marc Miller rose, and touted how much the government is investing in culture, including their cultural export programme. Martin Champoux took over to ask the same again, and Miller pointed out that the filmmaker Champoux mentioned is funded by the National Film Board.

Continue reading →

QP: A recession or a technical recession?

Posted on by

The PM was finally present today for the first time since the GDP numbers were released, as was Pierre Poilievre, itching for a confrontation. Poilievre led off in English for a change, and he worried that nineteen of the G20 nations Arena not in recession, and asked for only leader of a G20 nation in recession to stand up. the Speaker said this was not a question but a request, and moved onto the next question. Poilievre then worried about all of the people in food insecurity and asked if we are in a recession or technical recession. Mark Carney first wished Poilievre a happy birthday before launching into a script about how much we are building as a country. Poilievre thanked him for the wishes, and noted that he is 47 but that’s 50 with inflation, before he listed more things going wrong in the country, and again asked if it was a recession or technical recession. Carney suggested he asked the CD Howe Institute and noted the OECD growth projections. Poilievre switched to French to repeat his G20 framing before asking again if it was a recession or technical recession. Carney corrected what the promise he made in the election was, and repeated his talking points about building. Poilievre returned to English to complain about the PM’s in-flight catering and again demanded to know if it was a recession or a technical recession. Carney decided to instead praise the international investment he has been able to attract to the country. Poilievre dismissed this as being about private corporations getting rich regardless while people suffered, and again asked if it was a recession or a technical recession. Carney said that we are in an economy in the midst of transformation and praised the increase in investment and exports to non-U.S. markets. 

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and lambasted the government for attempting to back track on the streaming levies charged to web giants. Carney said that this was about affordability and patted himself on the back for spending $600 million more on culture. Blanchet tried to again, and this time Carney said that everyday people would pay for that levy through increased costs, so they have decided to focus on affordability while ensuring the cultural sector is supported. Blanchet said this was worse than capitulating, but validating the American notion that the French language and culture are a barrier, and it also capitulated to the Conservatives. Carney insisted that they were investing, and that they have “more than made whole” the cultural sector (which I am less convinced about).

Continue reading →

Ceding the recession narrative

Posted on by

The is-it-or-isn’t-it recession talk continued apace over the weekend and on Monday, as Pierre Poilievre demanded an emergency debate on it (which the Speaker denied), while more economists continued to line up on the side of “it’s not a recession.” Even the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada appeared at committee and warned them not to take a single point of data when the economic indicators as a whole remain mixed.

Ignore all of those other economists, including the Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada. Andrew Scheer, who couldn't even complete his insurance certification, is going to school you on the recession.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-06-02T01:36:43.140Z

This being said, prime minister Mark Carney has been wholly silent on it since the data were released on Friday morning. He made two separate media appearances yesterday but took no questions at either one, and he has avoided Question Period yesterday and he’s avoiding it today, and it really starts to look like he’s ceding the ground to Poilievre, who keeps bellowing his ridiculous narratives while Carney, who is supposed to have the economic gravitas as a former central bank governor, remains absent. And there are important things we should probably be talking about with this data, such as the fact that in periods of slow growth, these indicators dipping below zero are less important than the overall picture, and that overreacting and panicking can lead to greater problems or damage in the longer term. But we’re not having this conversation because, again, Carney is ceding the field, and given that Poilievre seems to enjoy this unearned economic credibility, it’s frankly arrogant to think that his bogus narratives can’t gain traction because they absolutely can, and that will spell trouble overall.

My Latest:

  • For National Magazine, my dive into Friday’s pair of Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the exceptions for the Jordan timelines on trial lengths.
  • My weekend column points to things that Steven Guilbeault’s departure has highlighted as just how much this government is backsliding on its climate goals.

Continue reading →

QP: Resurrecting the “Netflix tax” falsehood

Posted on by

The PM was in town but away from the Chamber, while Pierre Poilievre was present, and he led off in French, claiming it was an illusion that the war in the Middle East was raising gasoline prices when he claimed it was Liberal taxes and the weak dollar. (Are you kidding me?!) François-Philippe Champagne, in his usual ebullient manner, praised the “good news” of the actions the government has taken to assure affordability. Poilievre then claimed that they were blaming housing prices on Iran (huh?) and demanded the government cut all gasoline taxes. Champagne reminded him of the statements of the International Energy Agency that we are in the worst energy crisis in the history, and exhorted the  opposition to vote for their budget bill. Poilievre switched to English, and he lamented all of the taxes people need to pay, and that the government is planning to triple the “Netflix tax.” (There is no Netflix tax). Champagne decried that the Conservatives have voted against all affordability measures. Poilievre then pivoted to property rights in BC, and falsely claimed the government was forbidden to defend those rights, and Rebecca Alty read her statement that the government has defended fee simple and that they are pursuing the matter in the courts. Poilievre tried again, and Sean Fraser reminded him of the actions they are taken to protect property rights while advancing reconciliation. Poilievre insisted that he just wanted federal lawyers to make protection or property the primary argument, and claimed that they were banned of doing so. Alty read a script about the litigation directive as to why Poilievre is wrong.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and mocked that the federal government is “reviewing” the referendum question in Alberta, and that the Clarity Act is contempt for people and provinces. Dominic LeBlanc said that how is the time to work together to counter the tariff threats from the US, and they were working to show that Confederation works. Normandin was not mollified and went to bat for separatist referendums, and LeBlanc reiterated that they are focused squarely on economic issues. Rhéal Fortin took over to read his own condemnation of the Clarity Act, and LeBlanc repeated his same assurances.

Continue reading →