Tag Archives: Housing

Roundup: Another tranche of housing money

Posted on by

As part of his pre-budget announcement tour, Justin Trudeau was in Halifax yesterday to announce a new tranche of housing funding, which comes with strings attached for provinces to access it, and if provinces don’t, well, it’ll get rolled into the municipal stream to let them access it instead. Some of this is an extension of the existing Housing Accelerator Fund, but they also have some new conditions around densification to be able to qualify for that funding, which is really about overcoming the NIMBYism that prevents a lot of it currently.

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/1775245369128939654

This having been said, there will be implementation issues, and for that, Jennifer Robson has some thoughts.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they downed two out of three Russian drones overnight on Monday, and that so far this year, Russia has fired five Zircon hypersonic missiles at Kyiv. Ukraine continues to make its own drone attacks against Russian refineries, with the latest strike against the country’s third-largest refinery. After much debate, Ukraine has lowered its draft age from 27 to 25 as they need to replenish their troops. Ukraine’s largest energy grid operator says that recent attacks have damaged the power system, but that total collapse is unlikely.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Promising rental protections that are provincial jurisdiction

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland made a pre-budget announcement yesterday geared toward Millennial and Gen Z voters and their particular frustrations with the housing market, with some particular promises around rentals—some Legal Aid funds for tenants fighting unfair evictions, a “Renters’ Bill of Rights,” and a voluntary mechanism where paying rent on time can help with your credit score. The problem here? This is all pretty much provincial jurisdiction.

The political calculus here is a little bit of a Kobayashi Maru—any help that they want to offer renters has to essentially be done through the provinces, and yet the federal government is constantly being badgered and hectored—and blamed—for rental issues. Hell, the NDP have been screaming that they want help for renters in the budget, even though it’s provincial jurisdiction. So, this becomes something of a handwavey gesture to make it look like they’re listening and doing something when they really have almost no levers, particularly at a time when premiers are far less keen to work with the federal government on anything (and are in most cases undermining them wherever possible). Meanwhile, the number of files they need provincial cooperation with keep mounting, whether it’s healthcare, dental care, pharmacare, the early learning and child care agreements, a possible school food programme, and the Canada Disability Benefit (where the biggest danger is provinces clawing back their own supports when additional federal dollars are introduced). What’s adding one more thing to that list? Cripes.

https://twitter.com/JenniferRobson8/status/1773160710274527466

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1773172941573812385

As always:

Programming Note: I’m going to take the full long weekend off, because we’re about to head into a very, very busy and nasty time of year, so I’m going to take as much time as I can, while I can. Have a good one!

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russia has struck Kharkiv with aerial bombs for the first time since 2022, resulting in at least one civilian death.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Economists endorse carbon pricing, not the Liberal plan

Posted on by

Yesterday, a group of leading Canadian economists published an open letter about the facts about carbon pricing and the rebates, and debunked several claims that conservatives around the country have been making. It was a good and necessary corrective, but of course, legacy media headlined it as them defending the Liberal plan, which they weren’t doing, particularly because while the Liberal plan includes the carbon levy and rebates, it also is full of regulation and subsidies, which these economics are explicitly not in favour of. But legacy media loves to make this a partisan fight where they have to be on one side or the other. Liberal Party comms didn’t do themselves any favours either on this one.

To that end, here is energy economist Andrew Leach on carbon pricing, and throwing some shade at the PBO’s rather shite report once more.

Meanwhile, a number of premiers demanded to be heard at the House of Commons’ finance committee about the carbon levy, because they think that’ll do them any good, but instead, the Conservative chair of the Government Operations Committee invited them to testify today. The Government Operations Committee has fuck all to do with this file, but apparently, we no longer care about things like committee mandates anymore, so long as you can put on a dog and pony show, and gather clips for social media shitpost videos, that’s all that matters. This shouldn’t be allowed, but this is the state to which our Parliament has now debased itself. Ours is no longer a serious institution for doing serious work. It’s only about content creation, and I cannot stress enough about how absolutely terrifying this is for the future of democracy.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Ukrainian missile attack struck a Russian naval reconnaissance vessel as well as a large landing warship. Ukraine’s navy says that they have destroyed or disabled a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet over the past two years. Here’s a look at how Ukraine’s burgeoning domestic defence industry is ramping up to provide necessary ammunition for the war. Here’s a great explanation of Ukraine’s use of drone warfare with some excellent infographics.

https://twitter.com/defenceu/status/1772541600591147503

Continue reading →

Roundup: Simping for the return of Stephen Harper

Posted on by

Yesterday, former Conservative campaign manager and current media darling Fred DeLorey wrote a column for iPolitics that posited that under a Pierre Poilievre government, appointing Stephen Harper to the Cabinet post of foreign affairs would be a “bold declaration of Canada’s readiness to assume a pivotal role in shaping global affairs.” It’s a…novel…argument, and while I will admit that I haven’t read the piece because my subscription has lapsed, I wanted to make a few points regardless.

The first point is that while it is possible for a prime minister to appoint a minister who doesn’t have a seat, the convention is that they find one as soon as possible, whether in the Commons or in the Senate, because otherwise they can’t report to Parliament or sponsor legislation without needing a proxy to do it for them. Harper himself appointed Michael Fortier to the Senate in order to serve as minister of public works, and later international trade. (Fortier resigned from the Senate to run for a seat in the Commons in the next election and was soundly defeated). I find the notion of Harper being given a Senate seat to be far too ironic considering his utter disdain for the institution, and in particular its appointed nature. The alternative is asking one of Poilievre’s MPs to resign in a safe seat to run a by-election for Harper to run in, but again, I have seen zero desire on his part to get back into electoral politics. He’s also a one-man show, and the party is still very much his cult of personality, three leaders later, so I have a hard time envisioning him being a team player and not undermining Poilievre’s authority at every turn.

As for it being a “bold declaration,” I think that on the face of it, it smacks of trying to copy Rishi Sunak giving David Cameron the post in the UK government (along with a seat in the Lords), and Sunak’s government is about to be wiped out in the upcoming general election. There has also been plenty of chatter since this proposal went up over Twitter, and a lot of it is from people who still, to this day, believe that Harper is some kind of Bond villain, and that his IDU is some kind of SPECTRE. He’s not, and it’s not. The IDU is a social club for terrible people, and Harper has spent a lot of time cultivating friendships with autocrats and dictators, and has been part of the move to create permission structures for far-right parties to engage in increasingly autocratic far-right behaviour. It’s hard to think of what kind of cachet Harper is going to have on the foreign policy circuit given that he didn’t really have any foreign policy wins when he was in office. Conservatives love to recount how he allegedly told Putin to get out of Ukraine at a major summit, and look how effective that was—Putin went from occupying Crimea to launching a full-scale invasion of the rest of the country. Harper really showed him! Meanwhile, he’s spent so much time cuddling up to these terrible people and laundering their actions in pretending that they are “centre-right democratic parties,” unless that’s the kind of foreign policy that Poilievre wants to cultivate (which is possible). I just fail to see where DeLorey sees an upside in any of this.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russians have been pounding Ukrainian power facilities, including a hydroelectric dam on the Dnipro River, or power supplies in Kharkiv, during which president Volodymyr Zelenskyy is calling on allies to summon the political will to deliver needed air defences. Russia says these are “revenge strikes” for attacks across their border, an claims these military targets including “concentrations of troops and foreign mercenaries.” Ukraine says that Russian oil refineries are legitimate targets. Ukraine is also worried that Russia could be preparing as many as 100,000 troops to make a new offensive push this summer, or to replenish depleted units.

https://twitter.com/defencehq/status/1771149078010765485

Continue reading →

QP: Is the PBO right or out of date?

Posted on by

In spite of the fact that they are both in town, neither the prime minister nor his deputy were present for QP today, and most of the other leaders were absent as well. Andrew Scheer led off, and after rattling off slogans, he raised the story on the cost of the prime minister’s vacation, and got increasingly breathy as he demanded an election. François-Philippe Champagne said that Scheer had become the CIO of Canada—the Chief Inaction Officer, and that he was advocating inaction on climate change and clean growth. This earned him a warning from the Speaker. Scheer then railed about people not being able to afford food and blamed the carbon levy, and again demanded an election. Gudie Hutchings got up to recount the story of a senior in her riding who tracks his expenses, and what happy that he comes out ahead with the rebates. Scheer insisted this was just false, and claimed the PBO stated otherwise, and once again demanded an election. Hutchings recounted more stories from seniors in her riding. Luc Berthold took over in French, took some swipes at the Bloc, and demanded to know what the government promised them for support. Champagne said that it was clear that the Conservatives didn’t believe in climate change while the government takes action and grows the economy. Berthold tried to call out the Bloc on the upcoming vote, and and Steven Guilbeault reminded him that they ran on climate change in the last election, and that just behind him sits a former Quebec minister who brought in Quebec’s system. 

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and decried how much the government says no to Quebec, Pablo Rodriguez listed things they said yes to, and that the Bloc only wants to start fights. Therrien listed more things the government said no to, including the abolition of the monarchy, and Rodriguez gave much the same reply.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, decried rent increases in Montreal—which is provincial jurisdiction—and wanted something for renters in the budget, Soraya Martinez Ferrada noted the investments in different types of housing, and their agreement with Quebec. Jenny Kwan appeared by video to give the same question with a BC lens, and Martinez Ferrada gave the English version of the same talking points.

Continue reading →

QP: Calling out a committee chair

Posted on by

Both the prime minister and his deputy were present today, as were all of the other leaders, who had all attended the lying-in-state for Brian Mulroney earlier in the morning. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he rattled off his slogans, but quickly switched to English and claimed that the PBO “confirmed” that in every province people pay more in carbon levies than they get back in rebates (which isn’t really true, because he’s looking at a different set of numbers), and demanded that the prime minister give his caucus a free vote on their Supply Day motion about cancelling the increase. Justin Trudeau responded in French that eight out of ten families get back more than they pay, and that Poilievre only wants to take money out of people’s pockets while they do nothing about climate change. Poilievre stayed in English to read that the Nova Scotia legislature voted unanimously to reject the carbon levy increase, and demanded a free vote on their motion, to which Trudeau listed what their carbon rebate is. Poilievre read a misleading number about how much the PBO says the levy costs the province, and repeated his demand, and Trudeau doubled down to praise the rebate, but didn’t dispute the PBO number. Poilievre then raised Bonnie Crombie saying she won’t implement a carbon price in the province if elected and again demanded a free vote. Trudeau trotted out the full lines about affordability challenges, and the Ontarian rebate level—because he needed his full clip. Poilievre then raised BC, misleadingly stated that the province “administered” the federal price, which is wrong, and Trudeau complained that Poilievre doesn’t care about facts, but only making “clever arguments,” to which the Conservative caucus got up to applaud before he could finish his point.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he resurrected the “fiscal imbalance” talking point from the grave, to which he accused the federal government of engineering Quebec’s deficit, which is…a novel argument. Trudeau said that the federal government is there to help provinces, while the Bloc is only trying restart a sovereignty debate. Blanchet accused the federal government of owning Quebec $7 billion, and Trudeau insisted that he works with the Quebec premier, not the Bloc.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and raised the Auditor General’s report on Indigenous housing. Trudeau thanked the Auditor General for her report, and said that they are working in partnership with First Nations to advanced their priorities. Singh repeated the question in French, and Trudeau insisted that they have invested recorded amounts in housing and services for Indigenous communities, but they have made progress.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A new tone in communications? Maybe?

Posted on by

After some two years of the Conservatives rolling out three-to-five-minute disinformation videos on the regular, the Liberals have finally responded in kind, with something that has reasonable production values, snappy pace, and delivers messages to counter the Conservatives’ message with a bit of a punch at the end. One has to wonder why it took them so long, but they didn’t spare any effort in getting every single one of their MPs and proxies to blast it over their socials over the weekend.

What I will add that was fairly notable was that they didn’t rely on slogans in the video, or on entirely happy-clappy pabulum as they normally do. I’m hoping that perhaps this will finally—finally!—mark a turning point in how they approach their communications, but I’m not going to get my hopes up there either. Until proven otherwise, I suspect this may be a one-off, or Sean Fraser in particular, rather than an overall trend in how this party communicates.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian missile struck Mykolaiv on Sunday, killing one and wounding at least eight. Ukrainian drones damaged another oil refinery in Russia, and disrupted electricity supplies in order areas.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1768642103968485561

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking Atwood’s unfounded concerns too seriously

Posted on by

I am starting to think that the Globe and Mail has a secret penchant for humiliating Margaret Atwood while pretending to substantiate her concerns about legislation. They did it with Bill C-11 on online streaming, where Atwood read a bunch of utter nonsense on the internet, some of it by a fellow CanLit author who is currently a crank in the Senate, and she got concerned about bureaucrats telling people what to write. It was utterly ridiculous, but what did the Globe do? Write up her concerns as though she knew what she was talking about, including the part where she admitted she hadn’t really read the bill.

And now they’re doing it again—same journalist, in fact—about the Online Harms bill. Atwood again read some stupid things online, this time from the right-wing press in the UK, and is again worried about “Orwellian” consequences because of “vague laws” and “no oversight.” And hey, the Globe insists that because she wrote The Handmaid’s Tale, she’s an expert in Orwellian dystopias. But again, Atwood is operating on a bunch of bad information and false assumptions, and the story in the Globe doesn’t actually do the job of fact-checking any of this, it just lets her run free with this thought and spinning it out into the worst possible scenario, which if you know anything about the bill or have spoken to the experts who aren’t concern trolling (and yes, there are several), you would know that most of this is bunk.

The biggest thing that Atwood misses and the Globe story ignores entirely is that the hate speech provisions codify the Supreme Court of Canada’s standard set out in the Whatcott decision, which means that for it to qualify, it needs to rise to the level of vilification and detestation, and it sets out what that means, which includes dehumanising language, and demands for killing or exile. That’s an extremely high bar, and if you’re a government, you can’t go around punishing your enemies or censoring speech you don’t like with that particular bar codified in the gods damned bill. I really wish people would actually pay attention to that fact when they go off half-cocked on this bill, and that journalists interviewing or writing about the topic would actually mention that fact, because it’s really gods damned important. Meanwhile, maybe the Globe should lay off on talking to Atwood about her concerns until they’re certain that she has a) read the legislation, and b) understood it. Honestly.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces downed 15 out of 25 drones launched toward Odesa, while a Russian missile destroyed a grain silo in the Dnipro region. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that their frontline situation is the best it’s been in three months as they have improved their strategic position. Here is a deeper look at the Ukrainians’ retreat from Avdiivka, as ammunition was low and one of their commanders disappeared. UNESCO says that Ukraine will need more than a billion dollars to rebuild its scientific infrastructure that has been damaged or destroyed in the war.

Continue reading →

Roundup: More lying to cover up for the lies

Posted on by

Earlier in the week, Conservative MP and justice critic Frank Caputo put out one of the party’s signature shitpost videos where he spent seven minutes talking about how he took a trip to the medium-security prison that houses notorious serial killers Paul Bernardo and Luka Magnotta, and it was replete with this theatrical outrage that the facility has a hockey rink and a tennis court. How dare they! Such “luxury”! Caputo also says he got to tour Bernardo’s cell while Bernardo was away, but that he came face-to-face with him after, and that Bernardo ask him something.

Well, it turns out that encounter didn’t actually happen. Correctional Services says that they were at opposite ends of a corridor and may have seen one another but didn’t interact. They also said that the hockey rink that Caputo was complaining about hasn’t been in service for the past couple of years, so as to dispute the notion that Bernardo is spending his days playing pick-up hockey.

Well, the Conservatives didn’t like that. Andrew Scheer accused The Canadian Press of bias for quoting the Correctional Services. Caputo claims that they denied the existence of the hockey rink, which they didn’t. And Pierre Poilievre’s press secretary accused CP of lying to cover for the government, except he was the one lying.

It’s galling just how egregious the Conservatives have lied throughout this affair—both Caputo lying on his shitpost video, and then all of the other Conservatives trying to run interference and lying about CP’s reporting. CP, the most egregious of both-sidesers in order to maintain strict neutrality in all things. But they will say and do anything to discredit the media, both to build their dystopian alternate reality, but to also condition their followers to believe absolutely anything, and to just ignore all of the cognitive dissonance. And of course, their apologists will either keep lying or keep trying to distract from the lies in order to try and whitewash the whole affair. This is the kind of thing that kills democracies, and they’re gleefully going along with it.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say that they have sunk another Russian warship using unmanned sea drones.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A stunt at committee everyone fell for

Posted on by

The Conservatives, and Michael Chong in particular, pulled a stunt yesterday where they tried to call for an emergency meeting at the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee to study the Winnipeg Lab documents. Liberal and NDP members on the committee said that this isn’t the right committee and this isn’t an emergency, and shut it down. This was the Conservatives’ plan, so that they could take to social media and scream and caterwaul about the “cover-up coalition,” and just like they planned, virtually every single pundit and media outlet did their bidding for them.

To wit, this is that particular committee’s mandate:

“Under Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee’s mandate is to study matters related to reports of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Act (matters related to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons are studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs). The Committee can also study any legislation or regulation or propose initiatives that relate to access to information and privacy and to ethical standards relating to public office holders.”

This study has absolutely nothing to do with it, and while there should be some kind of parliamentary scrutiny, it belongs most likely at the Health Committee, as PHAC would fall within their remit, and possibly Public Safety and National Security, but not Ethics. The NDP think this should go to the Canada-China Relations committee, but I also find that one to be a bit of a stretch (because I also think that committee is little more than a sideshow). But again, it was wholly appropriate for the Ethics committee to shut this down, because it was only meant to be a stunt.

It’s absolutely maddening to see how many media outlets and pundits walked right into this trap and let themselves get played. The CBC, for example, both-sided it, with the headline of “Conservatives accuse,” and the Liberals pointing out this was the wrong committee halfway down the piece. The Canadian Press both-sidesed it more concisely, and didn’t provide any context about the committee. The Globe and Mail, somewhat predictably, downplayed the Liberals and NDP pointing out that this was the wrong committee, gave over plenty of space to the Conservative argument that it should be without actually checking it against the statutory remit of the committee, and privileged Michael Chong’s comments, when he is not on the committee and was 100 percent pulling a stunt.

The thing is that this keeps happening—Conservatives have been regularly proposing studies on issues that committees have no remit over (such as trying to get the Public Accounts committee to go after the Trudeau Foundation), and then crying foul when they don’t play along, and then drive social media engagement off of the faked outrage. Rules matter. Parliamentary procedure matters. It’s not a “process story” you can dismiss, it’s bad faith actors playing the media, and the media going along with it when they should know better.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say they stopped a Russian advance near Avdiivka, but that Russian troops appear to be regrouping further south.

Continue reading →