Tag Archives: Housing

Roundup: Money for not living up to your end of the bargain

Posted on by

One of the stories that has been floating around the past few days is that Toronto stands to lose up to $30 million in federal funding from the Housing Accelerator Fund because council did not approve city-wide zoning for sixplexes, which was a condition that they signed up for when they negotiated their deal for this money. And of course, this also comes with voices who claim that the federal government would be “using money as punishment” if they don’t give them all the money anyway, even though they have quite deliberately thumbed their noses at the very thing that they agreed to in order to get that money.

The established media narrative is that municipalities are *always* the victims who have no tools at their disposal.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-07-13T17:58:54.360Z

Unfortunately, we have a history of the federal government backing down when it comes to either giving money anyway when deals are broken, or by not recovering costs when they should. For example, the federal government was clawing back health transfers from New Brunswick for not funding abortion access at a clinic that was in an underserved part of the province, but when COVID hit, they released all of the clawed back money so that they didn’t look like the bad guys in ensuring that the province was living up to its obligations (or, for that matter, proving that they were sticking to their feminist principles, and using that money as leverage for the province to back down and fund the clinic). Another example is that provinces have deliberately underfunded their emergency management systems because they have been conditioned to know that the federal government will provide assistance from the Canadian Forces, and that provinces will get that assistance for free. The federal government has the authority to recover those costs from the provinces, but they never do because it would look like they’re somehow being mean to those provinces, when the provinces deliberately underfunded their own capacity.

If we want to reform things and start enforcing a system of accountability, that starts with making sure that provinces and municipalities live up to their agreements, or they don’t get transfer payments. But that requires a backbone and a willingness to actually hold them to account for those failures, and not being so timid that they refuse to actually say in clear terms that those provinces or municipalities didn’t live up to their agreements, so they would lose the funding/didn’t fund their own services because they thought they could get federal services for free, but they can’t, because there’s one taxpayer and they think they’re being clever. Nothing will change if someone doesn’t take a stand, and it’s time we start doing so.

Ukraine Dispatch

Trump says that America will resume sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine, so we’ll see how long it lasts this time.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Pushing back retaliation, again

Posted on by

The latest Trump eruption has prime minister Mark Carney backpedalling some more, and he has said that his deadline for retaliatory tariffs, which was July 21st, is now going to be August 1st, since this is when he’s extended the negotiation deadline to, again letting Trump continue to string him along. Nevertheless, he has also called a Cabinet meeting next week, and will be meeting with the premiers on the 22nd in Huntsville, Ontario. The Conservatives immediately jumped on this and tried to insinuate that this was rich snob Carney being too good to have meetings in Ottawa…except that Doug Ford had already called the Council of the Federation to meet there, and Carney will now be joining in to make it a First Ministers’ meeting.

There is further clarity that New NAFTA-compliant goods will continue to be exempt from these new tariffs (for now, anyway), and energy and potash tariffs will continue to be ten percent instead of the new threat of 35 percent, but it’s entirely incoherent, other than the usual threats about Supply Management (with no reciprocal offer to reduce any American agricultural subsidies). Of course, Trump said a lot of wrong things about Supply Management, so that’s not helping matters any either.

The latest from @clareblackwood.bsky.social on the constantly shifting tariffs.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-07-11T18:11:42.200Z

In the meantime, the Conservatives want to recall the trade committee to hear from trade-exposed businesses. Of course, this is really just about getting clips for social media, since they’re not getting them from Question Period, and much like the transport committee and the ferries to be built in China, this will likely be members of all parties shaking their heads and expressing their dismay at Trump and his tariffs, but not too much dismay because that’s what they do—performative displays of dismay (again, to feed their social media channels). I expect nothing to come out of these meetings (other than a fresh supply of clips), but performers gotta perform, and that’s pretty much all MPs are these days (and yes, that is a Very Big Problem).

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian attack on Kharkiv on Friday damaged a maternity hospital. Ukrainian drones, in contrast, hit a Russian fighter aircraft plant and a missile production facility. It’s almost like there’s a very different way in which the war is being conducted on either side.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Alberta’s censorship plan goes ahead

Posted on by

The Alberta government released their policy on “explicit materials” in school libraries yesterday, and it went badly, in part because it was confusing about what they considered acceptable “non-explicit sexual materials,” and pretty much every media outlet got it wrong, while my Xtra colleague Mel Woods was out there correcting everyone for several hours until they could update their stories. The government even had to put out a clarification.

Alberta's new school library standards are here, and include a total ban on "explicit sexual content" from school libraries in the province Notably, "religious texts" are excluded — and when asked during the briefing today to give examples, only the Bible was brought up as an obvious exception.

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-07-10T18:35:11.927Z

I understand that the confusion is between "non-explicit sexual content" and what the government is defining as "not considered sexual" — they are two separate things

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-07-10T20:01:59.483Z

All of the media outlets reporting that books with puberty/kissing/hugging are banned in Alberta for Grade 9 and under … that's not true!!

— Mel Woods (@melwoods.me) 2025-07-10T20:33:27.209Z

All of this being said, what got me was that they got a token trans person to insist that this particular censorship (and let’s be clear that it’s what this is) has nothing to do with LGBTQ+ people but is just about sexually explicit materials, and they even said something to the effect of “At that age, we need guidance and not sexual materials.” And I immediately started swearing at the TV, because this is where it always starts. This is a page directly out of the playbook of autocrats like Viktor Orbán, who use LGBTQ+ scapegoating to further their ends. Hell, we have a history in this country where wannabe censors at Canada Customs (as it was then known) for seizing innocuous queer materials bound for the Little Sisters bookstore in Vancouver and claiming it was “obscene” (and there’s a Supreme Court decision on this).

For them to say "This is not about LGBTQ+ material, it's about sexually explicit material" as if Little Sisters didn't happen in this country or Viktor Orbán's anti-LGBTQ+ laws that target innocuous books aren't happening RIGHT NOW is absolutely enraging.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-07-10T18:46:28.143Z

Of course, this is about LGBTQ+ people and materials. Three of the four books that started this moral panic on the part of the Alberta government were queer or trans. They were weaponised by Christian nationalists to achieve this very result. And they will keep complaining that any queer materials are “sexually explicit” by their very nature until the government capitulates. It’s also why the proposed age verification legislation that is making yet another attempt federally is 100 percent guaranteed to be used to attack queer and trans materials. Pretending otherwise means you are either mendacious or an idiot, or possibly both.

Ukraine Dispatch

Here is a look at how the residents of Kyiv are dealing with the increasing waves of attacks in recent weeks. A rebuilding conference took place in Italy, committing over ten billion Euros to the effort. Meanwhile, the UK signed a deal to supply air defence missiles to Ukraine, while the UK and France also agreed that Paris would be the headquarters of the “coalition of the willing” for Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Everyone wants a PONI

Posted on by

Tim Hodgson, Cabinet’s absolute worst QP performer, was in Calgary yesterday to announce funding for some carbon capture projects (which we should be dubious about), where he was asked about that absolutely morally bankrupt letter from the Alberta and Ontario environment ministers, demanding the essential dismantling of the federal environmental protection regime. Hodgson responded by praising Bill C-5 and its giant Henry VIII clause to deal with existing environmental legislation, and obliquely hinted that said environmental legislation would be dealt with over time, which is not exactly encouraging when Mark Carney says that he still cares about the environment.

Hodgson also made comments about the discussions being had about what projects they plan to designate as Projects of National Importance (PONIs), but again, it’s vague, and invites distrust because nobody knows what is supposed to qualify, or what they should be bringing forward, and it all looks like a gong show in waiting that will put way too much power in the hands of a single minister with nowhere near enough guard rails. That’s not a good thing, guys!

Meanwhile, Erin O’Toole showed up in The Walrus of all places to wax nostalgic about back when Canada used to build things, like during the First World War, when there were ships being built along the shores of Lake Ontario at an incredible rate. And that’s great. But also remember that the lakefront back then was an industrial wasteland with no environmental regard (that was incredibly costly to clean up afterward), and you can pretty much bet that occupational health and safety were not exactly being minded then either. I cannot stress enough that maybe you should think about just what the circumstances were back “when Canada used to build,” and why that might not be a good thing to return to. Honestly…

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia’s attack overnight Thursday and into Friday was the largest of the war so far, with 550 missiles and drones, largely at Kyiv and another four regions. (Video clips here). Two Dutch intelligence services say that Russia has been increasing use of outlawed chemical weapons in Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Questions about the barriers to building

Posted on by

There was an interesting piece from The Logic yesterday where they asked the proponents of three projects to describe what their barriers are, and they’re…not all that coherent? One of them was complaining that they don’t really know where to apply for things and that it’s a black box once they do. And I find that curious, because there is a city full of consultants, lobbyists and government relations professionals out there whose job it is to help you navigate these kinds of processes. These people exist. It’s their jobs. Other proponents are complaining about federalism—some things trigger federal rules, some provincial, and they just want a one-stop shop. Which, sure, I get, but there are joint review processes available for certain projects that have both federal and provincial assessment components, but also that’s the nature of a federal state. Neither jurisdiction is going to abdicate their sovereignty, and I think that there are legitimate concerns if you expect one level of government to give up their process to “avoid duplication,” because it’s not actually duplication—they each look at different things, and I would not trust certain provincial governments to adequately address the concerns of federal legislation in their own processes.

The other complaint that these proponents have has to do with negotiating with provincial electricity suppliers for their projects, and the process of trying to negotiate adequate electricity for the project so that they can advance their proposals, which again, is not a barrier the federal government can do anything about. And sometimes hard things are hard, but I didn’t see any particular barriers in these descriptions that seemed insurmountable—it was a lot of “we don’t know what we’re doing,” and “I don’t want to have to do it,” particularly where there are environmental concerns. Which is one of the reasons why I’m particularly concerned about Bill C-5 federally, which can essentially ignore rules with the wave of a pen, and Ontario’s Bill 5, which literally can declare certain zones in the province to be lawless. These are not good approaches, but they seem to be what our leader have settle on, particularly because Mark Carney seems to operate on an ethos of seeking forgiveness rather than permission, which is not a good look for a government.

Meanwhile, here is Andrew Leach with a couple of added observations about these projects:

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia has launched an all-night attack on Kyiv that has injured at least fourteen. There were also strikes against port infrastructure in Odesa that have killed two people, and shelling of Pokrovsk has killed five people. There was also an airstrike against Poltava that his a military recruitment office that killed two people. Meanwhile, the EU was discussing how to adapt to Trump’s decision to withhold needed arms to Ukraine, as some cannot be sourced elsewhere.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

Posted on by

Things got underway early for a marathon day of debate on Bill C-5, but before that could start, Routine Proceedings and Senate Question Period had to take place, which promises to be the last sitting day of the spring, and also Senator Marc Gold’s last sitting day as Government Leader in the Senate. Some of the statements made were farewells to Senators whose terms are expiring in the coming months, another statement was about the two people who lost their lives in the recent landslide near Banff.

Back in the Senate for #SenQP, early today ahead of marathon hearings on Bill C-5.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-06-26T13:07:16.620Z

Senators Housakos led off, asking about the opioid crisis, calling the government’s response flawed and reactive and wondered why there wasn’t a national strategy to deal with it. Senator Gold noted the tragedy of these deaths, and that the government is setting up a plan to tighten the border, and noted recent statistics that use has fallen. Housakos decried the failure of the government, and wanted a more effective response that would achieve results. Gold noted that the government is working with provinces to protect people.

Continue reading →

QP: Faux shock that not everyone gets a maximum tax break

Posted on by

Fresh from the G7 summit, and with the days in the sitting nearly expired, the prime minister was present for QP today, as were the other leaders. Andrew Scheer was present, but left it up to Jasraj Hallan to lead off, and he raised the PBO’s calculation that most people won’t get the full $850 savings thanks to the tax cut, which he insisted was a broken promise, but in a way that was full of accusations and overwrought invective. Mark Carney played down what the PBO said and pointed out that the Conservatives voted for the bill. Hallan took another swipe at Carney and accused the government of raising the prices of groceries, rising crime, and said that Carney was “on his knees” for Trump and demanded a budget. Carney said that a tax cut is for those who pay taxes, with 22 million Canadians pay, and that the maximum was $850. Michael Barrett took over to accuse the PM of conflicts of interest, to which Carney said that unlike the member opposite, he ways proud to have been in the private sector and insisted that that he did have conflict screens in place. Barrett took exception, saying that he served in uniform, and again accused Carney of conflicts. Carney responded by patting himself on the back for their recent increased military spending commitment. Gérard Deltell returned to the PBO assertion French, and Carney repeated that the maximum was indeed $850, and for up to 22 million Canadians. Deltell tried to equate this to a Brookfield statement, and Carney turned to a paean about their single Canadian economy bill.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and didn’t believe there was any connection between the haste of Bill C-5 and the trade war. Carney insisted that there was a connection, particularly for the steel and aluminium industries, because they needed to create demand domestically. Blanchet said that projects take years so there couldn’t be a direct link, but Carney insisted that because projects take too long, they needed this legislation. Blanchet pointed out that there as supposed to be some movement with Trump at the G7, to which Carney pointed that we have some of the lowest tariff rates with the Americans, but there was still more to do.

Continue reading →

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 →

QP: Gas-powered nonsense

Posted on by

With the G7 still ongoing in Kananaskis, minus Trump, things continued apace back in Ottawa as the government continues to bulldoze through its One Canada Economy bill (which remains a very big problem). Andrew Scheer was once again present but silent, leaving it up to Chris Warkentin to lead off, who raised the party’s Supply Day motion about ending the government’s supposed ban on gas-powered vehicles, which is not a ban, but it’s not like they have any real compunction to tell the truth. Julie Dabrusin boggled that the Conservatives would attack the auto industry like this. Warkentin shot back with claims that a report said that there could be 50,000 job losses in the auto industry because of trade uncertainty (read: Trump’s capricious tariffs), and he demanded the government “end the insanity” of the supposed “radical” ban on gas-powered engines. François-Philippe Champagne insisted that they would take no lessons from the Conservatives, and he praised the record investment in the auto sector and the EV supply chain. Rachael Thomas took over, and she demanded freedom of choice for vehicles people drive, and that EVs don’t fit the needs of Canadian families. Dabrusin said that she would stand up for the auto industry and for being climate-competitive, as EV sales are up globally. Thomas gave another overwrought plea to “stop making the vehicles auto workers are producing illegally,” and claimed that farmers can’t use EVs (which is complete bullshit). Dabrusin reminded her that the characterisation is wrong, and that they are not banning gas-powered vehicles (and it only took her until the fourth answer to point this out), but this was support for the EV sector, which has seen growing demand. Luc Berthold read the same mendacious script in French, and worried about the lack of snowmobiles, ATVs and F-150s. Champagne patted himself on the back for bringing Quebec into the auto industry and that they are creating jobs in the industry of the future. Berthold worried that cold weather cuts battery power of EVs, and Dabrusin praised the EV industry and Quebec’s adoption.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and accused the government of using the G7 as a distraction as they ram through Bill C-5, and that this was something so heavy-handed that it would embarrass Stephen Harper. Mandy Gull-Masty insisted that there would be “exhaustive” consultation with Indigenous people as part of this. Normandin hoped that there were more Liberals who were uncommitted with this bill and what it represents, but Stephen MacKinnon insisted that they got elected to do just this. (Erm…) Patrick Bonin took over to also decry that the Henry VIII clause in the bill is so open-ended that they could suspend any law. Dabrusin said that Canadians asked the government to build a strong economy, and to embark on projects of national importance while they still protect the environment.

Continue reading →

QP: Attacking Gregor Robertson’s real estate holdings

Posted on by

While the G7 summit was happening in Kananaskis, things in Ottawa were heating up over a closure motion on the One Canada Economy bill. Andrew Scheer was here but didn’t lead, and left it up to Melissa Lantsman to lead off, and her decried environmental legislation that is supposedly killing energy projects, and demanded that legislation be repealed. Tim Hodgson urged her to pass the One Canadian Economy Bill. Lantsman urged him to repeal all environmental legislation, and Hodgson said that industry and unions supported their bill. Jasraj Hallan took over to also demand that “radical” environmental laws be repealed, and this time Julie Dabrusin took over and said that becoming an energy superpower needs to ensure projects are low cost, low risk and low carbon. Hallan tried again and got much the same answer. Gérard took over in French to also demand that environmental legislation be repealed, and this time Steven MacKinnon noted that their electoral platform was predicated on passing this bill. Deltell tried again, and got much the same answer.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she decried the “gag order” in Bill C-5 that gives the prime minister exclusive power to define projects in the national interest, and said this as much like Poilievre got elected. François-Philippe Champagne stood up to praise the bill. Normandin again sniped that this was essentially like getting the Conservatives elected, and MacKinnon got up to insist that everyone was behind this bill. Patrick Bonin repeated the same concern about the bill, and had to be warned about unparliamentary language. MacKinnon got back up to essentially taunt that the Liberals won the election.

Continue reading →