LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Because we are living in an age of deeply unserious politics, we have seen yet another example of how correctly stating whose jurisdiction a particular constitutional responsibility lies becomes the dumbest political scandal. To wit, on Monday, prime minister Justin Trudeau stated that housing is primarily not a federal responsibility, but that the federal government was going to step up and do what they could do help provinces and municipalities with the crisis that we have collectively been sleepwalking into for a couple of decades now. Immediately, opposition leaders, the pundit class and much of legacy media all declared that these words would haunt Trudeau, because as we are all well aware by now, the discourse in this country is completely dysfunctional when it comes to discussions about jurisdiction—something that the premiers have long been able to take advantage of in order to avoid responsibility for the messes that they’ve created and refuse to clean up.

As legacy media has declared that “nobody cares about jurisdiction,” it has given tacit permission for opposition politicians to simply lie about what the government is doing, and should be doing—not to mention about what they would do if they were in government. To that end, Pierre Poilievre summoned journalists to a scrum outside of the West Block on Tuesday, and tried to ridicule Trudeau’s assertion about federal responsibility, pointing out that policies around immigration, infrastructure and taxes are things the federal government has power over, and that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is federal (ignoring of course that it operates at arm’s length from government). None of these, however, are an actual constitutional responsibility around housing, and none of these addresses any of the root problems around the housing crisis.

Yes, the federal government could and should create tax incentives for purpose-built rental housing, but that won’t help if you can’t get a permit or zoning for a rental property, whether a low-rise gentle-density building on a single lot or a high-rise. We cannot forget that in some cities like Vancouver, there are tens of millions of federal dollars for affordable housing projects that are languishing because the city won’t issue the permits for them. The federal government has already mandated housing and density around infrastructure projects they help fund, and they are already finding federal properties that they can either sell or develop into housing—things Poilievre says he would do if he were to form government (but more likely would just take credit for the work already done).

What Trudeau cannot do, which Poilievre pretends he could if he were in government, is force municipalities to give out more building permits. There is no constitutional power to do so, and if you think that picking fights with mayors and threatening to withhold federal infrastructure dollars to do so is a winning gambit and not a recipe for prologued court battles, well, you’re in for a surprise. Trudeau’s government is trying to use a carrot approach with their $4 billion Housing Accelerator Fund to incentivize municipalities to use that money to streamline their processes or undertake other processes that can get more housing projects started, but it also took them a year to start getting that money out the door, so there is a lengthy turnaround time for any of these kinds of policies.

Trudeau also cannot force lower rents or stop “corporate landlords” or the practice of renovictions, as Jagmeet Singh demands, because landlord/tenant legislation is entirely provincial. Yes, the Liberals did make some kind of a promise around “renovictions” in the last election, but they have never laid out just what mechanism they hope to use to stop them, which is as much of a problem in terms of the misleading processes that other parties are making on the housing file. Singh also accuses Trudeau of not showing leadership and simply pointing fingers at provinces and municipalities, but he has never articulated just what “showing leadership” is supposed to look like when you don’t have the federal levers to fix the root problems, which are very much about cities refusing density, and the NIMBYism that pervades this obstruction.

Another sub-plot to this crisis has been the concern-trolling around immigration numbers, and how “irresponsible” it is for the federal government to maintain high levels when we have a housing shortage. Frankly, this is not only a gateway to racist commentary (and believe me, I see it all the time in my social media), but we continue to need these high immigration levels because of our labour shortage and aging population. If anything, this should be a kick in the ass for the provinces to do something about the housing crisis, especially as provinces like Ontario demand more control over the immigrants they want to settle in the province. The added issue of international students not being able to find housing is a crisis that the provinces entirely created for themselves by cutting funds to post-secondary institutions and freezing tuitions, which forced those institutions to seek more international students (whom they can soak for much higher tuition). They should be held to account for this.

Because housing is a provincial responsibility, and because municipalities are creatures of the provinces under the constitution, premiers have the power to do something about this crisis, whether it’s abolishing R1-zoning in municipalities, forcing density targets, or using their own resources to build and maintain social housing (particularly in light of the fact that many provinces took federal dollars intended for that housing and then spent it on other things). We should also have legacy media demanding accountability for this from provincial governments like they’re supposed to do. Instead, we get them saying things like “a federal responsibility is what voters tell the federal government its responsibility is,” or demands that the federal government “force the provinces to force municipalities” to do something—because apparently the prime minister can just Green Lantern away Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution. If the premiers are going to be forced to move, it’s because their voters are demanding action, and that can’t happen so long as we collectively keep making excuses for them and trying to blame the federal government instead.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Mark Twain once said “Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.” And yes, I grant that it’s easy to be cynical about politicians. Especially when they go out of their way to seem foolish, and they are Canadian “conservatives”. But I repeat myself.

There are plenty of examples of their self-defeating PR/policy plans, from deficits to climate change to defence spending to Quebec and on and on. But today’s topic is gender politics and the culture wars, because both Pierre Poilievre, leader of the federal “Conservative Party” and Alberta premier Danielle Smith, leader of the provincial “United Conservative Party”, were recently photographed at the Calgary Stampede with a guy wearing a “Straight Pride” shirt and both, when heckled by the media, played dumb and fled.

Except, to borrow a line from Dennis Bloodnok in The Goon Show, they weren’t playing. It’s genuine idiocy to find oneself in such a predicament because it’s so easy to avoid being in the photograph at all. Just have an aide scan anyone approaching phone-in-hand, for, say, swastikas. And they do have aides.

Indeed, when challenged Polievre delegated one of his handy lackeys to say the boss “does not agree with the message displayed on the T-shirt”. Which was, in its entirety, “THANK A STRAIGHT PERSON TODAY FOR YOUR EXISTENCE” above a picture of a stylised man and woman holding hands, below which it said “STRAIGHT PRIDE”.

OK then. Which part did he not agree with? That almost everyone alive today, regardless of orientation, owes their existence to heterosexual intercourse and most of the rest to straight-donor IVF? That we should be grateful for the gift of life? Or that, if it’s OK to be “proud” of being gay you can also be “proud” of being straight (even if it’s not something you did and pride is one of the Seven Deadly Sins)?

Apparently nobody asked. And if they did it wouldn’t have done any good because they don’t go there. There being frank discussions of principle and its relationship to policy and messaging. Instead Smith also delegated a Mouth of Politician to say she didn’t read the shirt “and obviously doesn’t agree with its message.” Why “obviously”? What was its message? Why didn’t she read it? Any thoughts? On any subject?

No. Of course not. Ideas are for losers. Politics is all about the positioning, which must always be safe.

Thus Poilievre won’t commit himself to spending 2% of GDP on defence, lest someone ask what he’d cut, or in mediaspeak “slash”, to free up the money. Nor to not spending it, lest someone call him soft on security. Instead he substitutes partisan fire for philosophical firmness. From a safe distance.

On straight pride, he sent an aide to spew talking points so there was no chance of him being asked personally to try to make principled sense on a sensitive subject. For bad measure the spin control included that Poilievre posed with “hundreds of people” and like the Premier did so this time “without reading what was written on his shirt.” Which is the usual cunningly dopey ploy.

What if it had said “DEFUND THE POLICE”? Or “DEATH TO JEWS”? Are we to believe he would he not have glanced? Or that he might have looked but claimed he hadn’t recognize the symbolism of, say, “KKK”? He’s been an MP since 2004 when he was just 25, and has won seven elections. Politics is all he knows. But he doesn’t look at the shirt? Then he’s an idiot. And if he looked, then buckled when challenged, he’s an idiot for not anticipating the challenge, and a poltroon for buckling when it came, and a double idiot for not having a better cover story than “Shirt? What shirt?”

The National Post says Poilievre’s aide also billowed forth a thick cloud of fog about how “Conservatives are working to build a country where everyone is free to be themselves, ‘regardless of their sexual orientation.’” And I won’t get sidetracked into what kind of “Conservative” thinks it Caesar’s job to shape public morality. But I would like to ask why, in that case, he wouldn’t stand up for people who are “proud” to be straight. Isn’t that a sexual orientation? Aren’t they free to be themselves, and be “loud”, and all that guff?

Alas, to expect consistency from these people is as naïve as to expect wit or courage. So Poilievre also claims to oppose identity politics. But again, only when it’s safe.

They call this slippery doublespeak pragmatism. But it’s just more idiocy because this famously practical approach doesn’t even work. The federal conservatives win a majority once a generation when Canadian voters get heartily sick of certain chronic Liberal failings like arrogance and profligacy. But then they govern timidly from the left and get booted after a single term or, once in the last century, two (under Mulroney), because they lack the courage of their lack of convictions. And the issues don’t go away, including gender, and ducking them impresses no one. Is Poilievre better placed now on family, or drag shows in schools, even from a purely tactical point of view? Hoo hah.

Even in Alberta, where conservatives dominate politically, they govern like liberals just in case, boasting of lavish spending on social programs, mouthing woke shibboleths and ducking controversies even when a majority would agree with the right-wing position. They sacrifice principle for political disadvantage and think themselves wiser than serpents. Whereas with Justin Trudeau, for all his failings, you don’t wonder where he stands, even if you often do wonder why. And he keeps winning elections and they shouldn’t wonder why.

Suppose you’d gone up to Poilievre or Smith at the Stampede before this incident and said “Hey, persons, here’s a great way to look weak and stupid” then proposed this photo-and-flee. Surely they’d have realized it was a bad idea… unless they were idiots. And Canadian Conservatives. But history repeats itself.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


This content is restricted to subscribers

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.