The Iranian administration has once again cut off communications to and from its people, shutting down internet and phone access, and violently suppressing any dissent.

This isn’t new. It’s a tactic the regime has repeatedly used when civilian unrest intensifies: to isolate protestors, prevent documentation, and carry out arrests and killings away from public scrutiny.

This time, however, the scale and intensity of the violence and repression appear more severe. We don’t yet know the full extent of what’s happening. But multiple media and human-rights reports already point to at least 2,000 people killed and more than 10,000 detained, and those numbers are almost certainly higher, and still rising.

For many Iranian Canadians, this is not distant news. It is fear for family, friends, and loved ones.

As an MP, I’ve spoken publicly to condemn the regime’s repression and to amplify voices calling for Iranian democracy. I also work alongside an Iranian-Canadian in my constituency office, Sara, and given what’s now at stake, I wanted to share her perspective directly.

Sara: We have seen waves of resistance to the Iranian regime before, from the Green Movement in 2009 to the protests following Mahsa Amini’s death in 2022. This pattern did not begin in 2009 or 2022. Since coming to power in 1979, the Islamic Republic has consistently responded to dissent with repression, through executions, the dismantling of opposition movements, and lethal crackdowns such as those seen during the November 2019 protests. Opposition has persisted, and so has the punishment of those who lead or join it.

What we are witnessing now, however, appears broader, more sustained, and more determined, driven by years of economic collapse, repression, and the absence of accountability.

While the Iranian regime claims solidarity with Palestinians, it simultaneously denies those same fundamental rights to Iranians at home. Freedom, dignity, and safety are not causes that can be selectively defended.

It’s also important to recognize that Iranians are not a monolith. Iran is an incredibly diverse society, and that diversity is reflected in the range of views about what change should look like and how it should happen.

In recent days, debates have intensified within the Iranian diaspora about leadership, opposition figures, and the role of outside powers. Some voices argue for international intervention; others warn, based on the experiences of Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, that foreign military involvement often deepens civilian suffering rather than ending it.

These disagreements are real and deserve to be acknowledged, not flattened or dismissed.

What should not be debated is this:

Peaceful protestors should never be met with lethal force.

Information should never be treated as a weapon.

And human rights shouldn’t be applied selectively.

Canada’s role is not to dictate Iran’s future. That must be determined by Iranians themselves.

But we do have a responsibility to consistently defend civilian protection, access to information, and accountability, wherever those principles are violated. Silence only enables further harm.

We must continue working with like-minded countries to stand with and support the Iranian people.

Here’s a rundown with what I see as the good, the bad, and the ugly in Budget 2025. In short, it meets the moment in part, on questions of sovereignty and spurring economic growth. At the same time, it fails to live up to its promise of generational investments.

You can read the full text of my budget response further below.

Upcoming events

First, I want to make sure you’re aware of a few upcoming events in our east end:

• Remembrance Day services: 11 am at the Kew Gardens cenotaph and at the East York Civic Centre, 1 pm at Branch 345 on Peard, and 2 pm at the Naval Club.

• Beaches Santa Clause Parade: Sunday November 16 at 1 pm, starting at Kingston and Victoria Park. Thanks to Centre 55 for making it happen.

• Uncommons Live with Tanya Talaga, award-winning author and journalist: Wednesday November 19 at 7 pm, at Beach United on Wineva. RSVP here.

Recent Uncommons episodes

Having passed legislation to ban the captivity of whales and dolphins, there remains the important question of what will happen to the animals still at Marineland. In this episode, I speak to a former Marineland trainer turned Whistleblower. And there are also other ideas among those who care about what should come next.

Catherine McKenna joined us for a live event last month to talk about her new book Run Like a Girl, climate (in)action, and the challenge of encouraging good people to join politics when there can be such a nastiness to it.

With a greater emphasis on public safety and border enforcement, we can’t forget about civil liberties and privacy rights. Kate Robertson is an expert at The Citizen Lab at U of T and Adam Sadinsky is with the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

There’s a broad need for stronger digital governance to better address privacy, competition, and online harms. Taylor Owen is an expert at McGill and founding director of the Center for Media, Technology and Democracy.

If you have ideas for future guests or topics, let me know here: info@beynate.ca

Budget 2025: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I’ve seen the budget described as investment-focused, as austerity, as reckless. Can it be all of those things at once? I won’t go through all 493 pages, I will spare you from that, but here’s a rundown of what I see as the good, the bad, and the ugly from Budget 2025.

Let’s start with the Good.

In the face of threats, the government is rightly prioritizing actions to secure our sovereignty. That includes support for businesses and workers affected by tariffs, a Buy Canada procurement policy, significant new infrastructure spending, and a huge commitment to the Canadian Forces.

There are also smart forward-looking ideas, like the sovereign fund for critical minerals, taking a lesson from Norway. And there are new dollars for innovation and to attract talent and research from the US, whose administration seems intent to run intelligence out of its country.

There are also useful actions to respond to rising youth unemployment, to create a Youth Climate Corps, to support PSWs, to protect the Canada Disability Benefit from taxation, and more.

Lots to like in many ways, and more generally, I welcome the focus on productivity, both to drive economic growth in the private sector and to get the most out of public services. Although, yes, care is required to ensure those efforts don’t go sideways.

Now to the Bad, or more fairly, where expectations were set at a level that we failed to meet, including on the question of generational investments.

First, stalled climate action. I don’t want to be too dismissive here, as the Canadian Climate Institute rightly highlighted the importance of a strengthened industrial carbon price. But apart from that promise, there was nothing new. Yes, we’re moving forward with strong methane rules and clean investment tax credits, and these are key pieces. But we’re also cutting tree planting, moving away from an emissions cap, winding down Greener Homes, and the budget offers no new money for climate action.

On housing, we’ve got the beginnings of Build Canada Homes, a tax cut for new homebuyers, and some dollars for housing enabling infrastructure that are unlikely to move the needle on development charges as much as we’d like. It falls short of the specific promises in our platform, and it unfortunately falls well short of the war-time effort that many of us thought we’d deliver.

The fiscal frame of “spend less to invest more” is actually one that I like. Operational books generally in balance, and capital deficit-spending more easily justified. But the budget adds $140 billion in new spending over 5 years - $90 billion net after savings - and only 36% of the net new spending is capital.

Related, there’s a lot of deficit-financing here to cover non-capital new spending. Honouring our initial 2% commitment to NATO made sense and a middle class tax cut was a platform promise, but these are far and away the two largest financial commitments, they are non-capital, and they should be paid for. And much needed OAS reform - the largest non-capital growing expenditure - still isn’t part of the conversation.

Now, the Ugly, and there isn’t a lot that falls in this category thankfully.

First, we see the budget commit to a new inefficient fossil fuel subsidy for LNG facilities. If there’s a business case for LNG, there’s a business case. We don’t need more public dollars chasing fossil fuels.

Worse, we see major cuts - over 2.5 billion over 4 years - to International Development Assistance. Real Keir Starmer energy that unfortunately caters to a prevailing albeit short-sighted current view among wealthy donor countries. A Pearsonian budget this is not.

Conclusion:

I know these aren’t easy times, and a budget process involves tough choices.

It’s also only a first budget - it can’t be expected to solve all problems. And the devil will be in the details of implementation in many cases - from infrastructure and housing, to innovation spending, to the industrial carbon price, to finding efficiencies in government in a manner that is fair and effective.

Overall, the budget meets the moment in part - on questions of sovereignty and with a focus on spurring economic growth at home. And it’s certainly not a budget that should throw us into an election at such an uncertain time.

But fairly, it does not live up to its promise of generational investments.

I joked with colleagues that it’s a pretty good Progressive Conservative budget. A joke! But hey, some conservatives agree.

In the end, I was both right and wrong. Right that no one would care to ask the question about cannabis use 5 years later. Wrong to suggest the 5 year timeline, because only a year or two later we’d already reached that same conclusion.

7 years later now, and it’s hard to believe we ever criminalized the substance at all.

With the benefit of that experience, though, there are a few lessons to learn.

Lesson #1: Conservatives are consistently wrong about drug policy.

Here are some choice quotes from Conservatives in the lead up to cannabis legalization:

• Marilyn Gladu: “…this legislation would put marijuana in the hands of children…so little Johnny can put some in the toaster oven and smoke it up…” (no, I don’t know how Marilyn expects Johnny to smoke from a toaster oven. I do know that her poetry would make Ginsberg cringe)

• Ed Fast: “I am absolutely confident that Bill C-45…would become a massive public policy failure…”

• Bob Soroya: “This is just pushing it down the throats of all Canadians…” (I don’t know if we’re still talking about little Johnny)

• Stephen Harper: “misguided and reckless”

• Peter Kent: “It’s virtually the same as putting fentanyl on a shelf within reach of kids.” (I like Peter, but this may have been the wildest statement among wild statements)

Garnett Genuis and I even had a whole episode of Political Blind Date on the topic:

Some Conservatives, like Scott Reid, have been consistently supportive of cannabis law reform on the basis of their firm belief in individual liberty (Poilievre’s desire to make Canada the freest country in the world does not apparently apply here). But we mostly saw an evolution in political thinking on the right when past Conservative politicians started to make money in the cannabis industry, hypocrisy be damned.

Now, thankfully, the Conservative leadership has at least implicitly acknowledged they were wrong, making it plain that they don’t intend to recriminalize cannabis (yes, there are exceptions).

Lesson #2: there’s room to improve the rules as we balance economic impact with public health considerations.

Legal cannabis production and sale has made a huge dent in the illegal market since 2018. Billions of dollars that were otherwise flowing to organized crime now support Canadian entrepreneurs and workers. The sector now represents a significant annual GDP contribution (direct + indirect) of $13 billion, helping to support 200,000 jobs.

And yes, we can recognize and support these positive economic impacts at the same time as we maintain a public health approach.

From a public health perspective, that means continuing to limit commercial advertising and further advancing education, particularly about potential effects on developing brains.

From an economic standpoint, we should recognize that this is a serious and credible industry deserving of our attention and support.

That means ensuring cannabis producers aren’t forgotten in government programs, especially when it comes to exports but also those that serve the ag sector.

It means reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens. An obvious example is one we promised in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement - to move towards a national excise stamp - even more obvious now as we look to harmonize and remove trade barriers.

And it means reforming excise taxation more broadly. 7 years ago, the government imposed a $1 minimum tax on every gram, thinking perhaps that a gram = $10 on the black market. Not only did this ignore the reality of bulk pricing at the time, it now means that excise taxation alone makes it difficult for cannabis producers to survive.

With the economic opportunity here at home, and increasingly abroad, we should fix that mistake.

And, a smaller point on subject of tax reform, let’s not forget that medical cannabis is improperly subject to both excise and GST/HST taxation, which do not apply to other prescribed products by health professionals.

Lesson #3: different substances carry very different potential harms, so of course there should be different policy approaches.

In January, a Conservative MP visited my riding outside an event where I endorsed now Prime Minister Mark Carney, declaring that I’m a “radical drug advocate.” For my part, I’ve always thought prohibition was radical drug policy.

The Conservative Party even saw fit to put out a press release making the same argument. I actually appreciated it in a way, because it meant that a staffer/volunteer took the time to listen to and read a number of things I’ve said and written about drug policy over the years. Perhaps they were convinced in the end that we should treat substance use as a health issue, not a criminal justice one.

Unfortunately, the renewed “war on drugs” rhetoric isn’t just cartoonish, it also has serious potential consequences. When it has informed real policies, as it did for decades, those consequences could be measured in lost lives and liberty, squandered judicial and police resources, and exacerbated social and health challenges.

Last year, uninformed as ever, Poilievre conflated legalization efforts with opioid deaths, calling out “the Prime Minister’s disastrous legalization and liberalization of drugs.”

It’s important that we distinguish different policy approaches.

On the subject of cannabis, for example, I was clear at the time that cannabis has potential harms (mental health in youth, impaired driving, etc.), but that it is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco. And while I argued that we should treat Canadians as responsible adults when it comes to cannabis, I also argued for a public health approach that would limit commercial advertising (unlike the brazen alcohol and gambling ads we see all over the place).

We completely ignore a public health approach when it comes to alcohol, of course. Despite pouring out a bottle, widespread alcohol availability is the only priority Ford seems to have realized successfully.

More to the point, a public health approach won’t be the same for all substances, because of different effects and potential harms.

Take caffeine and and codeine, for example.

Caffeine is legal and permissively regulated with mg limits and warnings about consumption for both quantity and vulnerable groups, like kids and pregnant women. Codeine, on the other hand, is tightly regulated via medical prescription. Different substances = different regulatory models.

Or take psilocybin and heroin.

Psilocybin would likely benefit from a model closer to cannabis legalization and regulation. On the medical side, there are positive healthcare uses and the current special access program doesn’t work effectively to provide meaningful patient access. On the recreational front, we see illegal stores operate with some impunity and Canadians would benefit from quality control and a safely regulated marketplace.

Heroin, on the other hand, falls more clearly in the tightly regulated via a medical prescription model. And treatment on demand and safe/supervised access to reduce harms will collectively help to save lives.

Whether it’s an eating disorder or substance use disorder, we should aim to get people the help they need, not push them away from that very help by punishing them. In other words, we should treat substance use as a health issue, not a criminal justice one.

All of that’s to say, cannabis regulation teaches us that we can move successfully away from the failure of prohibition. It doesn’t, however, offer a useful framework for all other substances.

Our national caucus just met in Edmonton to get ready for the return of Parliament. And Ontario Liberals will now decide what the future holds.

In both cases, we need to ask ourselves what we want from our politics.

While direct attacks to our sovereignty have abated, we still need our leaders to stand firm in the face of threats to our economic security. The Prime Minister has rightly promised Buy Canada federal procurement and sectoral supports where needed most. Strangely, after a snap election call to earn a “mandate to fight back,” Ford’s response has been middling at best.

All leaders tell us it’s time to build a strong economy.

Some areas of jurisdiction are more distinct, of course. The feds are focused on a world class defense industrial strategy, while I wish Ford showed the same ambition in building world class healthcare and education systems instead of steadily undermining the strength of these public systems.

Other areas of jurisdiction are shared, like the housing crisis.

Stronger federal housing action has helped to deliver a boom in purpose built rentals. What’s next? Well, we promised a war time effort and it’s time to realize one. Unfortunately, Ford has failed to keep pace with other provinces and Ontario’s woeful housing starts put any national progress at risk.

In the face of rising youth unemployment, the feds should build on the promise of a youth climate corps to create meaningful opportunities for the next generation. Ford’s answer? You’re on your own.

When it comes to keeping our communities safe, the federal Justice Minister recently outlined action on bail reform and more, recognizing the need to both respect the presumption of innocence and to protect the public from repeat and violent offenders. Law reform is only part of the picture, of course. Delays and an under resourced administration of justice lie at Ford’s feet.

Now, as we work to address today’s challenges, we also need our leaders to act in the best interests of our collective future.

At the national level, we promised to make Canada a clean energy superpower. From an East-West transmission grid, to approving critical mineral projects, to methane rules and a stronger industrial carbon price, there’s lots of work ahead to realize the opportunity of a clean transition.

Again, we can’t do it if our largest province is MIA. Fossil fuels now power four times the electricity today than they did when Ford took office, and it’s set to get worse. Cost-effective wind and solar is an afterthought. And for all of the tough talk on Fox, we procure 75% of our natural gas from the US. Wasted tax dollars on private spas are one thing, but mismanaging our energy needs will be a bigger cost for all of us in the end.

So, what do we want from our politics? Hopefully the answer is serious ideas and substantive action. A willingness to draw a sharp contrast where needed, but that will also paint a positive picture of who we are, our goals for a more just society, and how we plan to get there.

Carney needs to deliver on the ambition we promised. affordable housing, clean energy, and economic resilience. A renewed focus on the economy without losing social progress. And Ford needs an opposition that won’t only highlight the incompetence and corruption of his cartoon politics, but that offers intelligence, compassion, and integrity.

Subscribe now

Against the economic threat posed by President Trump, Canadian politicians have rightly renewed calls for building up our country. It is a nation building moment. A strong and resilient domestic economy is a priority. Of course, it should be.

And to that end, we should remove unreasonable barriers to economic growth.

If a rule doesn’t contribute to the public interest, or if its negative cost is disproportionate to any positive contribution, we should do away with it.

But that doesn’t mean we should pursue economic growth no matter the cost.

Depending on the project, there may be competing public interest considerations: biodiversity and habitat protection, Indigenous rights, climate change, long-term cost-effectiveness, democratic participation, and more.

Yet, under the guise of responding to the threat posed by Trump, we are sacrificing other important values. We aren’t thinking about unintended consequences. And we are actively undermining our parliamentary democracy.

Consider the case of two Bill 5s - Doug Ford’s Bill 5, and the federal government’s Bill C-5.

Doug Ford’s Bill 5

Ontario’s Bill 5 became law last week. It gutted habitat protection just to start, but it also enacted the Special Economic Zones Act to give the government unnecessarily and disproportionately unchecked power.

Effectively, the government can designate special economic zones and then exempt or alter any provincial or municipal law that would apply to a company or project within those zones.

Ecojustice rightly called it a “threat to democracy.”

Worse, the Ford government shut down democratic debate, curtailed committee scrutiny, and jammed the bill through the legislature.

Now, par for the course for Doug Ford maybe.

Mark Carney’s Bill C-5

But Ecojustice has also called the federal government’s Bill C-5 a “threat to democracy” and no Liberal government should welcome that accusation.

Worse, in Bill 5 déjà vu, this federal government is proposing to shut down democratic debate, curtail committee scrutiny, and jam the bill through the legislature.

It would all make Harper blush. Liberals would rightly scream if a federal Conservative government attempted the same.

Now, fairly, while they share similar goals and suffer some similar defects, the federal Bill C-5 isn’t exactly the same as Ford’s Bill 5.

Breaking down interprovincial trade barriers

Part I of the legislation - the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act - usefully aims to harmonize federal and provincial rules where reasonably possible. The idea is to avoid duplicative regulation of goods, services, and labour where federal and provincial rules are comparable.

And yes, the devil is in the details of assessing what comparable means, but it’s a welcome move.

Streamlining national interest projects

The problems with Bill C-5 lie in Part II - the Building Canada Act.

Its purpose is clear: to get national interest projects built more quickly. So far so good.

The proposed law streamlines authorizations at the same time as it emphasizes the importance of climate action and Indigenous rights. A huge and positive distinction from Ford’s Bill 5. At no point does Ford’s Bill even mention climate change or the need to consult with affected Indigenous rights-holders.

But, despite its promise, the proposed Building Canada Act has two major faults: first, it gives the government unfettered discretion in designating national interest projects and, second, similar to Ford’s Bill 5, it gives the government unchecked power to exclude or alter any law that would otherwise apply to such a project.

The Minister of Natural Resources set the stage for Bill C-5 in a May 23 speech, calling for a “renewed spirit of building” by “reframing the national conversation. No more asking, ‘Why build?’ The real question is, ‘How do we get it done?’”

It would be wise of the government to take its own advice when it comes to Bill C-5. Rather than defending the why - the idea of the bill, we should refocus our attention on the how - how we pass it.

Subscribe now

The need for thoughtful consideration of Bill C-5

In other words, we should improve the bill and respect democratic participation as we do so.

First, we should welcome greater parliamentary and civil society scrutiny.

The government’s proposed guillotine motion seeks to limit parliamentary debate at every stage of the bill. More concerning, it will jam all expert/public testimony and all committee scrutiny in less than 2 days, between 3:30 pm on Tuesday and midnight on Wednesday. For what?

Consider that Parliament isn’t currently scheduled to sit between June 20 and September 15. We are rushing legislation through Parliament under the auspices of an urgent threat, but we aren’t willing to put Parliament to work for an additional week to get things right?

The debate on amendments does not need to be rushed. We could easily extend committee hearings by an additional week, provide resources for the committee to sit every day, and engage in a more thoughtful process to hear from experts, improve the bill, and pass it through the House by Canada Day.

Beyond improving the process, we should also fix the substance of Bill C-5.

Factors to consider in identifying national interest projects

First, section 5 currently gives the government unfettered discretion to designate national interest projects. There is a list of specified factors at 5(6) that the government may consider, including “the interests of Indigenous peoples”, as well as “clean growth” and “meeting Canada’s objects with respect to climate change.”

As currently drafted, however, the government does not need to consider any or all of these factors.

We can and should change that.

We could either mandate the government to consider these public interest factors, or we could require that national interest projects not be inconsistent with them. Simply, parliament should be more prescriptive than including factors as mere examples.

Excessive authority to exclude the operation of any law

Second, section 22 would empower the government to exclude the operation of any law from a project it has deemed to be in the national interest.

Combined with the unfettered power to designate such projects, it effectively does away with Parliament.

An easy fix: remove this unnecessary and disproportionate power from the law. The government can always amend regulations as it sees fit, but it should return to the House of Commons if a law, duly passed by Parliament, is to be excluded or altered in any given situation.

If there is a rationale for excluding the operation of a particular law, we can move quickly if needed.

Other potential amendments

There are no doubt other possible opportunities to improve the law.

It may well make more sense to limit the unique process to the next 3 years, instead of the next 5, for example. Or, we could require that Ministerial advice with respect to conditional authorizations be made public.

Expert testimony will likely offer other good ideas, if we care to listen.

Conclusion and voting intentions

For my part, I will support Bill C-5 here at 2nd reading to send it to committee. Because it is time to build and good projects should be built more quickly.

I will vote against the government motion that would hinder the work of the parliamentary committee tasked with public hearings and improving the legislation.

And I will vote for Bill C-5 at further stages only if it is amended substantively.

We don’t make laws in this place for one government, one Prime Minister. The laws we pass are binding on all future governments. Even a time limited law like this one, establishes a precedent.

If passed as it is, Bill C-5 is a dangerous precedent that will enable Conservatives to gut environmental protections when they are in power next.

President Trump is a threat to our economy. Of that there is no doubt.

My constituents overwhelmingly voted for a government and leader ready to act, to respond to Trump forcefully and to build up our country thoughtfully.

But not at the expense of our democracy, environmental protections, and Indigenous rights.

Share

It isn’t a particularly interesting debate from my perspective, but I’ve supported the measures in the past, will do so again, and thought it might be useful to explain why.

First, to start, the Reform Act requires our caucus to vote on whether to adopt four different measures. Each of the four votes is to be recorded, majority rules, and the caucus chair is to inform the Speaker of the outcome of each vote.

Second, the measures have nothing to do with any individual leader. Recently, Prime Minister Carney secured an overwhelming mandate from Liberal members. Adopting these measures has nothing to do with him or his mandate, just as my support for the Reform Act measures in past Parliaments had nothing to do with Justin Trudeau.

Third, there’s a defined process throughout that’s useful to understand at the outset: 1) the caucus chair receives a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of caucus; and this prompts 2) a secret ballot vote, whereby majority rules.

With that context in mind, let’s turn to the four measures.

Leadership review - subsections 49.5(1) to (3)

How it works: subsections (1) to (2) enable caucus to call a leadership review (a process to endorse or replace the leader) via the defined process (again, written notice from 20% of members and then a majority decision via secret ballot vote).

Subsection (3) requires the caucus chair to make the written notice public immediately upon receiving it.

Analysis: This is the section that generates all of the media attention but it isn’t particularly controversial. The leader - whoever that is - should be accountable to caucus. It’s as simple as that. And if a leader can’t command support from the majority of caucus, the writing is on the wall already.

The immediate public disclosure requirement seems gratuitous and likely to prompt a media frenzy, but it’s not a fatal flaw and leaks would take care of that anyway from what I saw last year.

Interim leader - subsection 49.5(4) and section 49.6

How it works: subsection 49.5(4) enables caucus, via secret ballot vote, to appoint an interim leader should the vote for a leadership review be a success. Section 49.6 allows for the same should the current leader die or resign.

Analysis: Again, this is straightforward and non-controversial. Party members ultimately determine the permanent leader, while caucus elects the interim leader.

Election and removal of chair - section 49.4

How it works: section 49.4 provides for a secret ballot vote to select a caucus chair after every election and that the chair shall only be removed via the defined process.

Analysis: Straightforward and non-controversial.

Expulsion and readmission of caucus member - sections 49.2 and 49.3

How it works: section 49.2 provides that a member may only be expelled from caucus via the defined process. Section 49.3 provides that an expelled member may be readmitted to caucus upon their re-election as a named party candidate or via the same defined process.

Analysis: This measure doesn’t generate the news coverage, but it’s actually the most challenging. On the one hand, MPs should be free to voice concerns without reprisal and the leader shouldn’t have unfettered power to expel caucus members. On the other hand, there are important conduct-related reasons to expel members (sexual assault and harassment, for example) for which the defined process is lacking.

I would prefer a clear alternative process for dealing with conduct-related cases but otherwise default to caucus as a general rule.

And that’s it. That’s the Reform Act in a nutshell.

It’s nice to see a number of colleagues receive overdue recognition and I’m hopeful we’ll see a lot accomplished in the coming months.

I’m not back in any role, unfortunately, so it may not surprise you to learn that it’s been a strange day on my end.

I ran again because of the opportunity to make an even bigger difference around the cabinet table and to help fix the housing crisis. The way it played out doesn’t sit right and it’s impossible not to feel disrespected. But I’m mostly disappointed that my team and I won’t have the chance to build on all we accomplished with only a short runway.

Our ambitious housing plan is bigger than one person, of course. I wish the new minister well and hope we’ll see fast action to unleash the market, double down on efforts to build community housing, address chronic homelessness, and treat housing as a home first (and investment second).

You never know what the future holds. But for now, I’ll be working hard for my neighbours here in Beaches-East York, restarting the Uncommons podcast, and returning to Parliament with a renewed sense of freedom.

Thanks to everyone who I’ve had the luck to work with in the housing and infrastructure role. Thanks to everyone who has had my back and reached out with kind words. Thanks to Justin Trudeau for the opportunity to make a bigger difference.

I wish Prime Minister Carney and our new government all of the success.

Also, I went for a run and this is my view as I write this, so life’s still good.

Addendum: as there was some media that took one sentence in this statement out of context to create some melodrama, I joined David Cochrane on Power & Politics to speak more fully about the situation. You can watch that here:

To Amy and my family. To the voters across Beaches-East York. To my fellow candidates. And to all of our amazing volunteers who contributed countless hours.

We are lucky to have the team that we do here in our east end.

It means a lot to have another opportunity to represent our community in Parliament. To make more of a difference. And to be your voice in Ottawa at such a critical time.

Now let's get to work.

While some ridings are still being tallied, it’s looking like a Liberal minority government just shy of the 172 seats required for a majority in the House.

A similar result to the last election but very different from the one we might have expected when I decided to run again in December.

It’ll be a different Parliament too. Tough to see that some long-time colleagues won’t be back, even as we made gains in other areas.

And while it was impossible to avoid some schadenfreude as we watched the Carleton results, we now need to put partisan politics aside to get things done.

As Prime Minister Carney said last night, we “will work for and with everyone.”

Having promised serious leadership in this moment of crisis, that’s what we need to deliver. To protect our economic interests and to build up our country.

And I know that there’s a lot of common ground across party lines to do just that.

Locally, my team and I will continue to be here to serve you, so let us know if there's an issue you need help with or an idea you want me to advocate for.

Thank you again for your trust and support. Now let’s get to work.

There’s a lot at stake in this election, but the core ballot question is still this: who is best placed to defend our economic and national security against Donald Trump?

We deserve serious leadership.

Locally, join us for the Beaches Lions Easter Parade if you can. It’ll be great to have a big team and we’ll meet at 1:30 pm on Sunday April 20 at Nursewood & Queen St E.

And the next big event will be our local debate at 7:30 pm on April 23 at Kingston Road United Church, co-hosted by the Beach Metro and the Balmy Beach Residents Association. If you missed the national leaders’ debate, you can watch it in full here.

Thanks for your ongoing support. It means a lot.

This is not a normal election.

We need serious leadership. To protect and build on our progress. And strong local representation.

Your participation matters now more than ever.

DONATE | VOLUNTEER | LAWN SIGN

Share

For example, I laid out my thoughts on all things housing in a comprehensive speech at the Economic Club of Canada. You can read the full text of that speech below.

We launched Toronto Builds alongside Mayor Chow. It’s $2.55 billion in low-cost financing for 5,000 new rental units, with more than 20% set to be below market. It builds on our waterfront deal, support to address encampments, and funding for the TTC.

Speaking of transit, we announced federal support for two major priority transit projects across Canada, including BC Translink and the Brampton LRT extension.

On the housing front, we got the first few co-op projects over the finish line, released the new Housing Catalogue, and landed Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund deals with British Columbia and a number of municipalities, including Mississauga, Sault Ste. Marie, and Sudbury. We are funding housing enabling infrastructure and incentivizing development charge reductions and reforms at the same time.

We’re also supporting the North, as we approved major new housing enabling infrastructure projects in Yellowknife, Whitehorse, and Iqaluit.

Lastly, I finalized a number of announcements through the Green and Inclusive Communities Building fund. There are great projects across the country, but I was especially happy to approve $20 million for the expansion of Science North, which I have fond memories of visiting as a kid, with a tarantula crawling all over my hand. We need to defend and expand science learning for our kids.

As busy as I was, the new Prime Minister was even busier.

After meeting allies in Europe, Prime Minister Carney met with Premiers to unlock internal free trade, announced an initial housing measure, and committed to a series of measures to strengthen our Arctic sovereignty. He also enjoyed St. Patrick’s Day.

No question, there’s real momentum heading into the election. Increasingly, Canadians understand that we need serious leadership in this moment, and a government focused on building up our country and economy in a thoughtful way.

My team and I have worked hard to make the most of these last three months. We’ve gotten a lot done. I expect to see many new and even more ambition housing commitments in the weeks ahead. And I hope we have the opportunity to come back and make an even bigger difference.

Subscribe now

Share

SPEECH TO THE ECONOMIC CLUB OF CANADA ON MARCH 18, 2025

First, a thank you to everyone for being here. But a special thanks in particular to my team. For putting this together, but also for doing as much as they’ve done these last three months.

When I took on this role, I expected it to be a short runway and said as much during the December swearing in. We’ve worked hard to make the most of it. And I now stand before you with a measure of experience. A cabinet minister for less than three months, but I’ve already served under two Prime Ministers.

Jokes aside, Paul my deputy is here, and he and the civil service have been a huge help. Coleen and the team at CMHC have worked overtime too and put up with my constant prodding. And my political staff, some new and some with me since 2015; none of this happens without them.

Apart from responding to President Trump’s threats and tariffs, I see delivering housing and infrastructure as the most important job we’ve got. It is time to build.

We need to ensure population growth and housing supply go hand in hand. We’ve got a huge amount of work ahead to double housing starts across this country.

But I want to start with a more basic story, and a question of opportunity.

Imagine two young people at university, let’s say that they meet in teacher’s college. They graduate, find different teaching gigs, get together. After a stint living together with friends, they move out on their own into a co-op.

5 years of living in that co-op and three kids later, they need more space.

With savings and some family support, they buy their first home. A modest three bedroom, semi-detached home that’s more than 60 years old. The price of that home is 4-5 times one teacher’s salary, while the other teacher stays home to raise the three kids for a few years.

Those three kids grow up wanting for little. A middle class life in Toronto, in Canada. They take transit to school, enjoy the summers with family road trips, camping, and sports, and they save up for a post-secondary education of their own, with a mix of help from their teacher parents as well as student loans.

The family is, in many ways, set up for success.

It’s one of many middle class stories in this country that many Canadians might recognize and identify with, and there is a basic equality of opportunity built into it.

But it might as well be a fairy tale today. Where it once took an average of five years to save up for a 20% down payment on a starter home, that number is up to 17 years across Canada and 27 years if you live in the GTA.

The housing crisis is a challenge to any sense of generational fairness.

It’s also a real challenge to our country’s productivity. Young and talented people won’t stay to work and contribute here if they can’t afford to live here.

Market housing is too expensive and non-market housing is too scarce.

Canada saw 230,000 housing starts in 2024. We need to double that.

The overall share of our social housing stock is less than 4%. We need to double that.

It sounds hard. And it is. But if we don’t collectively act with the requisite ambition, across orders of government and industries, the housing crisis will only get worse.

As a federal government, we’ve come a long way since 2015.

The National Housing Strategy was an important step to re-assert the federal role in housing. We saw additional action post-pandemic, including through the Housing Accelerator Fund. As of last year, my predecessor Sean Fraser helped oversee the most comprehensive plan yet.

And Marc Miller took action to reduce our immigration levels, including to significantly reduce temporary immigration that had become unsustainable. On the government’s estimates, the new levels plan will reduce the housing supply gap by about 670,000 units by the end of 2027.

Even with these cuts in place, we could see our population grow to 45 million by 2035. The reduced levels will help to stabilize demand, but we still need to build more homes to accommodate that growth.

Subscribe now

More, we’ve seen housing affordability run away on us over the last two decades - home prices and rents running away from incomes - and it’s been even more acute since the pandemic.

We don’t just need more homes to match the growth to come, we also need to catch up to the growth we’ve already seen.

Again, housing starts need to double, with massive increases especially needed in Ontario, BC, Nova Scotia, Montreal, and Alberta outside of Edmonton, and more.

So I’m not here to tell you that it’s mission accomplished, but to reiterate that there’s much more for us to do: to help drive down the costs of home building, to re-invest in community housing, and to treat housing as a home first.

Driving down the cost of home building

Simply put, we need more of all kinds of housing, built faster, and governments need to get out of the way to help make that happen.

To cut red tape and end restrictive zoning.

To reduce the tax burden on home building.

And to drive innovation.

It’s an even more difficult and pressing challenge in the face of the cost pressures and uncertainty that follow from the unconscionable US tariffs.

But we can and should focus on what’s in our control.

i) Red Tape

Let’s start with red tape and restrictive zoning.

We can’t accept outdated rules that protect so-called neighbourhood character at the expense of new neighbours who are looking for an affordable place to call home.

A premier holds the pen to end exclusionary zoning (and I didn’t quite get that far), but we can use our federal spending power to make a difference all the same.

Through the Housing Accelerator Fund we’ve allocated $4.4 billion through deals with more than 200 municipalities to reward housing ambition.

To end restrictive zoning, making gentle density the default without the red tape.

To speed up and modernize approval processes, because time is money.

And to make public land available for more housing supply.

It’s modeled on the Ontario’s Housing Affordability Task Force basic recommendations to increase density, remove exclusionary rules that prevent housing growth, and make sure municipalities are treated as partners in this process by incentivizing success.

Pierre Poilievre once railed against municipal gatekeepers and restrictive zoning. He now wants to cut the single program that’s done the heavy lifting to cut the red tape he used to complain about. He even barred his own MPs from going to bat for change in their home communities.

Anyone who cares about cutting red tape should instead think about doubling down on efforts that reward success and ambition.

Just yesterday, I approved a 10% HAF top-up for the top 7 municipal growth leaders, with $70 million reallocated from cities that walked away from the table.

Last month, I was blamed at City Council here in Toronto for the expedited process on avenues, and I consider that blame a badge of honour.

To be fair to Poilievre, he does have an alternative incentive model. The trouble is that it makes no sense. I’m just going to read from his plan for a second: “cities must increase the number of homes built by 15% each year and then 15% on top of the previous target every single year (it compounds).” If cities miss those targets? “A percentage of their federal funding will be withheld, equivalent to the percentage they missed their target by.”

Why would one want to punish top performers by requiring compound growth every year? Why would one accept a 15% increase from the worst performers?

In my view, the HAF model is a good one at its core and we should look to build upon it in partnership with provinces.

We’re working, for example, to improve transparency in tracking with CMHC publishing summaries of municipal progress.

More than that, we now have the benefit of more than 200 deals to see which municipal changes have driven the most growth and what is working best. Encouraging the adoption of auto permitting makes a lot of sense, for example. Requiring pre-approval of CMHC’s housing design catalogue is another. I’d welcome your own examples and opportunities to improve outcomes through a HAF 2.0.

It isn’t all on one program, of course.

For example, our Canada Public Transit Fund isn’t only the largest investment Canada has ever made in public transit, and it doesn’t only provide stable, predictable, long-term funding for state of good repair, to strengthen and expand existing transit networks. It also requires larger municipalities to enable high-density housing within 800 metres of high-frequency transit lines and post-secondary institutions.

Every infrastructure program we put into place is requiring additional reforms and action.

ii) Taxes

Beyond red tape, taxes can also be a major barrier to new builds. And we need much greater action here too.

At the federal level, we lifted GST entirely on new rental construction and have seen positive results.

The GST new housing rebate was implemented in 1991, it hasn’t been updated or indexed, and it doesn’t account for today’s market in any way. You can expect to hear more on this shortly from our government

• NOTE: Prime Minister Carney subsequently announced that the GST would be eliminated on all homes up to $1 million for first-time home buyers. This ensures the benefit doesn’t flow to speculators, which is a good first step and better than Poilievre’s promise. But worth noting that the existing GST new housing rebate is only available for homes purchased as a principal residence, so there’s already a useful guardrail built in, and we should keep the conversation open on how we can best ensure this measure drives supply and applies to help in regions like the GTA and Metro Vancouver.

In last year’s housing plan, we introduced an accelerated capital cost allowance for builders. And a rollover on capital gains that are re-invested in getting housing built would likely have an even stronger policy effect. Everything is currently on the table.

Of course, in many communities, the biggest tax burden on new builds is development charges. Worse, they do not consistently reflect the true costs and needs of delivering infrastructure.

It’s not an easy problem to tackle at the federal level, as it’s not the same challenge across the country. Development charges are a particular problem in Ontario and BC, and even within these provinces it can be apples to oranges between municipalities. Sault Ste Marie doesn’t have development charges. Vancouver and Toronto obviously have sky high DCs.

The Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund aims to address this challenge.

The idea is two-fold: to help provinces and municipalities pay for housing enabling infrastructure and secure commitments to freeze or reduce development charges.

We’ve secured a number of provincial and territorial deals these last few months. In return for funding, the deals require zoning reforms, a three-year development charge freeze, and harmonized building codes and standards.

Where we’re unable to secure a P/T deal, we are moving to finance housing enabling infrastructure with applications directly from municipalities. We will judge applications not only based on the merit of the specific housing enabling infrastructure project as submitted, but also by the ambition of action on DCs.

Sudbury, for example, has implemented a three-year freeze alongside a three-year moratorium on all DCs on multi-unit residential builds.

Other municipalities are deferring the collection of development charges to occupancy and waiving interest and waiving DCs entirely on the first four units of a multi-unit residential build.

Here in Toronto, we’ve been working on a local version of BC Builds, and it wouldn’t be possible to land a deal like that without Toronto’s recent action to reduce DCs and property taxes for rental builders that make 20% of the new units more affordable.

• NOTE: we subsequently announced the $2.5 billion deal, making lower-interest and long-term financing available for Toronto priority projects to drive affordable rental housing.

Our overall goal is to establish a set of best practices, as we drive down development charges.

Recognizing the provincial lead here and the need to help municipal finances, we will continue to be a strong partner by directly providing capital funds for housing enabling infrastructure and by expanding what’s included in the scope of eligible work.

But let’s be honest. The infrastructure gap is massive here.

When I met the Quebec builders in Montreal to talk about the $1 billion over 10 years in available funding for a provincial deal, they spoke of a $45 billion water infrastructure gap alone. Some municipalities like Gatineau have a moratorium on new housing because of the lack of water infrastructure.

There’s a significant opportunity here to mandate the Canada Infrastructure Bank to finance housing enabling infrastructure, recognizing that the gap cannot reasonably be closed by deficit-financed contributions or development charges.

Because if we expect growth to pay entirely for growth, we will simply get less growth. And the reality is that everybody benefits from growth.

iii) Innovation

Innovation is critical to growing the housing supply as well, and Prime Minister Carney spoke directly about driving housing innovation in his leadership bid.

That focus is critical when you consider our current productivity challenge in getting homes built. Consider these facts for example:

• Productivity in the residential construction sector has dropped by 25% since 2016.

• The construction sector is fragmented with only 22 of 38,000 residential construction firms employing more than 200 workers.

• The cost to build residential housing increased by 60% since the pandemic, outpacing overall inflation of 15%.

• The sector is forecasted to require 300,000 workers by 2032 to replace the 22% of current labour force expected to retire.

We need to seize the opportunity in off-site construction. We know that factory built homes cut construction time, labour costs, and waste. And mass timber off-site construction in particular represents a unique opportunity for a made in Canada approach, especially in this moment.

The biggest barrier to achieving maximum cost savings from off-site construction like modular is the lack of a sufficiently large production run.

Again, all options are on the table.

I favour an advance bulk purchase of factory-built homes, to guarantee a book of business across different regions, in partnership with municipalities and non-profits that make available serviced public land. Through the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, we’ve launched a recent call for proposals with $60 million in available capital to finance a few demonstration projects.

Procurement on federal land can drive business here too.

Investment tax credits to help factories scale make good sense.

And we need to work with provinces and territories to support skills training and ensure the labour force is ready for the industrialization of home building.

iv) Financing

In the Prime Minister’s recent leadership bid, he committed to “catalyze enormous private investment to build new affordable homes for younger Canadians by aggressively unlocking private risk capital for new home construction.”

We’ve seen great success with the always oversubscribed Apartment Construction Loan Program, and there’s a huge opportunity to use lower cost financing to help make the math pencil on new projects or existing projects that are otherwise stalled.

Re-investing in social and community housing

Of course, even the herculean effort of doubling housing starts is not enough on its own.

Because we know the market alone won’t deliver the affordability we need – it never has.

In the 1940s, Wartime Housing Limited was created, a crown agency that bought land and contracted the construction of houses, using pre-approved designs, priced for veterans and young families of moderate incomes.

We need that same wartime effort today.

There used to be a cross-party consensus on the need for a forceful government role, especially when it comes to community and social housing.

Consider that in the 1960s, a Progressive Conservative government in Ontario created a public authority that set the conditions for a tenfold increase in the production of social housing.

Watch: TVO’s The Agenda Interview

Fast forward and Mike Harris’ Common Sense Revolution helped kill that consensus. And as we try to bring it back federally, Poilievre’s so-called common sense cuts are around the corner.

When asked, he’s been clear. The government has no role to play in building affordable non-market homes. He describes public housing as Soviet-style housing, actively demeaning the kind of co-op and community housing that those two teachers and their kids depended on.

As long as I’m housing minister, I will continue to emphasize that we need to double the share of social and public housing in this country, a commitment echoed by Prime Minister Mark Carney when running for leadership.

Our current social housing stock is less than 4%. The OECD average level of non-market housing in high-income countries is 7 per cent. France mandates that urban municipalities ensure at least 25 per cent of their housing stock is dedicated to social housing by this year. In Vienna, widely considered to be one of the world’s most livable cities, more than 60 per cent of the population lives in government-subsidized housing.

We have a $1.5 billion acquisition fund that is just in its infancy. I’ve recently changed the authorities within the existing Affordable Housing Fund to enable acquisition as well. And today, I can tell you that the first three projects in our new $1.5 billion co-op housing development fund have been fully financed by CMHC.

The leadership at CMHC is committed to doubling non-market housing, the National Housing Council is committed, and our current government is committed.

We need to expand the pool of public and community lands to be made available for housing, an initiative launched less than a year ago. And we need to match those lands with long-term guaranteed low-interest loans and contributions, with CMHC helping non-market actors scale.

CMHC has a much more proactive role to play here, to move quickly, and to act more like a community housing development bank.

A Canadian version of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit is also worth considering.

73 per cent of Canadians see non-profit and co-op housing as viable solutions to the housing crisis. I’m one of those Canadians, Pierre Poilievre isn’t.

Elections are about choices.

Ending homelessness and addressing encampments

We also have a very different view in how to address encampments and homelessness.

I don’t think it’s helpful to other people. To treat the most vulnerable in our society as an opportunity for a partisan attack.

Anyone who has walked around the parks and main streets of Canadian cities knows we need to do more to address homelessness: both for compassionate and public safety reasons.

The simplest answer is the right one: to prevent homelessness, we need more homes.

We’ve increased homelessness supports - our Reaching Home strategy - by 400% since the pandemic. We’ve delivered $4 billion to get shelters, transitional and supportive housing built through the Rapid Housing Initiative, with another $1 billion being allocated by CMHC.

Watch: Ending Homelessness & Addressing Encampments

As a result of this work, more than 88,000 people have been placed in more stable housing and more than 150,000 have been helped with core prevention services.

We recently topped up funding with $250 million over two years, to be matched by provinces or municipalities where provinces don’t partner with us.

Here in Ontario, we reached deals with 12 municipalities that agreed to cost-match our contributions. Since taking on this role, I’ve been working to reprofile soon to be lapsed funds elsewhere to support communities in Saskatchewan and Ontario to address this immediate need.

Ontario is the only province where responsibility for social housing has been downloaded to municipalities. As a result, we are in a crisis.

I wish it was one we heard more about in this past provincial election, but regardless of how we got here, we need all parties and all levels of government to be part of the solution.

Public spaces - our parks and main streets - should be welcoming to all members of our community, and we can deliver the communities we all deserve while ensuring that we're treating people - in many cases the most vulnerable in our society – with respect and dignity.

Housing First.

Treating housing as a home first

That idea has a particular meaning in addressing homelessness. When I spoke at the Youth Homelessness Prevention Conference, it’s a term of art.

But it has resonance for me beyond that.

We need to attract massive investment in new building. Of course we do.

But in a competition for existing homes, investment dollars shouldn’t displace affordability.

For example, different jurisdictions here in Canada don’t allow investors to profit from short-term rentals. Other countries, like New Zealand, set higher down payments and more stringent stress tests for investors in the existing resale space.

In the end, we should look at all available rules to prioritize people who are buying houses as a place to call home.

Conclusion

It’s short-term thinking that has contributed to inaction and neglect from all levels of government, creating and eventually deepening the crisis that we’re in.

We’re done with half measures. And we’re treating this issue with the seriousness that is warranted in a crisis.

You’ve heard Prime Minister Mark Carney say that it’s time to build. And it is.

So the choice we have is clear: between Pierre Poilievre, who built next to no homes when he was housing minister, plans to reverse the progress we’ve made on red tape reduction, and doesn’t see a role for the federal government in community housing.

Or serious economic leadership that is ready to build more than we have in decades.

Because our country’s prosperity depends on it. And our individual sense of opportunity depends on it too.

Those two teachers living in that co-op were my parents. And I want that same sense of opportunity for my young kids.

Share

I’m back as the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and back to work. I have a list of things I’m working to get across the finish line before an election, and setting down ideas for what comes next.

Watch my interview on TVO: How Can Canada Make Housing Affordable

As I told my local Beach Metro News, we can expect an election sooner than later.

Every opposition party has said they intend to bring the government down. We’re set to have an election this year no matter what. And the new Prime Minister needs a new mandate, especially to deal with President Trump.

Of course, Prime Minister Trudeau leaves on a high note, in no small part because of how he’s stood up for Canada against Trump’s threats to our economic and national security.

We’ve had some disagreements over the years, but I’m also in politics because of Justin Trudeau’s commitment over a decade ago to more grassroots politics and I’m thankful to him for a great deal.

For his commitment to public service.

For meeting the moment in too many crises.

For making space for reasonable disagreement and more independence.

And for major progress in supporting families, climate action, reconciliation, and more.

The overriding focus for our new government and leader remains standing up against President Trump.

That work includes necessary retaliatory measures and firm diplomacy. It also means building Canada up with a stronger and more productive economy.

It is time to build. Especially housing and infrastructure.

An American president cozying up to the dictator Putin while threatening Canada.

Prime Minister Trudeau nicely summed up our nation’s collective frustration: “Make that make sense.”

One might say that it’s stranger than fiction, except that today’s plot parallels the B-movie classic Canadian Bacon. At one point in that film, a nutty security official even says about Canada: “They’re practically the 51st state.”

As a one-off comment from the President, it could be laughed away uncomfortably.

But when repeated and paired with damaging tariffs, we face a real and serious threat to our economic and national security. The long-standing friendship between our two countries is now upended, in the most chaotic and irresponsible way possible.

The tariff threat has been on, then off, then on, now delayed to April 2 (but maybe tariffs on dairy are still coming), all at the whim of America’s King Lear.

Back in December, I laid out the case against tariffs, explained the non-existent flow of illegal drugs and migrants, and pointed to our important history of cooperation.

Watch: Dear American, remember Canada is your ally and friend

But bad reality TV has gone to Washington and facts don’t seem to matter.

So we are left to fight tooth and nail, with a united Team Canada approach.

Prime Minister Trudeau has led the way, as the statesman and national leader our country needs. Our federal government has now implemented forceful and targeted retaliatory tariffs (if you are affected by these measures, there’s a remission process) that will be lifted when this trade war is over.

Premiers like Doug Ford have also been effective, not only taking the fight to the American airwaves, but moving forward with measures on alcohol and electricity.

In my last post, I shared my pride in being Canadian. Especially in this moment.

Watch: Proud To Be Canadian

Know that we will remain united. We will defend our country against these threats. And we will build our country up at the same time.

Subscribe now

It’s time to build: update on Housing & Infrastructure

We will continue to build up Canada in a number of different ways.

Our federal government recently announced the next step towards high speed rail between Toronto and Quebec City. As I said in interviews, it’s a huge boon to productivity and we need to speed up the timeline for making it a reality.

Of course, sustained productivity also depends on increasing our housing supply.

Last week, in Winnipeg, I co-hosted a meeting with provincial Housing Ministers to discuss ways we can best work together to drive down the costs of home building, get more community housing built, address homelessness, and respond to the threat of tariffs. I spoke to CBC’s The House about this latter challenge too.

We’ve kept incredibly busy otherwise, making a number of deals with provinces and territories on housing enabling infrastructure, and travelling across the country for announcements:

• PEI: announced an $86 million deal to build more housing enabling infrastructure. See CBC interview here.

• New Brunswick: spoke at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Sustainable Communities Conference about how we’re supporting zero emission transit, greener buildings, climate adaptation efforts, and more.

• Yukon: announced $33 million, the largest federal housing investment in Yukon history. A housing infrastructure fund deal is soon to come.

• BC: announced $675 million for over 80 affordable housing and rental projects. A housing infrastructure deal is coming there too.

• Manitoba: announced $240 million for over 100 affordable housing and rental projects, followed by a $204 million housing enabling infrastructure deal.

• Ontario: announced over $85 million to address encampments and homelessness, over $130 million for the Housing Accelerator Fund, as well as $2.2 billion to strengthen and expand existing public transit networks in 40+ cities.

  
  In Toronto, we landed a major deal (federal contribution of $500 million) on the waterfront to unlock 14,000 homes, finalized a $1 billion deal to deliver 50+ subway cars, and we’re working towards a Toronto Builds financing model.

• Quebec: met with Ministers towards a deal on housing enabling infrastructure, hosted a roundtable with Quebec builders, and engaged with community housing providers.

We are also starting to announce a number of community and climate resilient infrastructure projects. Last week, for example, we committed:

• $20 million to build a new Somali Centre for Culture and Recreation.

• $25 million to expand the McMichael Canadian Art Collection.

• $7.2 million for a new skilled trades training centre in Scarborough through the Toronto Business Development Centre.

On the question of driving down the costs of homebuilding, we’ve seen major progress in zoning and permit approvals through our Housing Accelerator Fund. Next, via the Housing Infrastructure Fund, we’re pushing for action on development charges, including a freeze, deferring collection (and waiving interest) to occupancy, and waiving DCs entirely on the first 4 units of a multi-unit residential building.

On a personal note, I’ve made clear my commitment to ending homelessness on a number of occasions, including recent remarks at the Youth Homelessness Prevention Conference. I’m now working to reprofile funds that are set to lapse and direct them towards addressing homelessness in communities that did not receive initial support and CMHC has opened applications for innovative housing solutions, prioritizing delivering homes to address homelessness.

Watch: Ending Homelessness and Addressing Encampments

If I leave you with anything, it’s that my team and I have worked to make the most of too short a runway.

Subscribe now

What comes next?

That runway will hopefully be extended in the coming months.

There’s so much more to do (especially on community housing), and we need experienced and thoughtful leadership now more than ever. We’ve seen a huge shift in the polls, driven by many things no doubt, including a realization that we can’t afford the unserious slogans and childish personal attacks that Poilievre’s leadership represents (after a brief flirtation with defending Canada around Flag Day, Poilievre and team are already back to their regularly scheduled character assassination).

We deserve better in our politics. We deserve smart, fair, and honest representation. And we deserve a leader who has what it takes to stand up against President Trump.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in the leadership process (I know how challenging the voting process has been).

I’ll be in Ottawa on Sunday to welcome our new leader and Prime Minister, and I remain committed to serving our community and country in these challenging political times.

Share

I am proud to be Canadian.

Yes, there’s still work to reconcile with our past, because we believe in justice. And sure, we have our fair share of challenges. What country doesn’t?

But we aren’t broken, and certain politicians should stop talking down this great country.

Canada will always be a work in progress, and it’s also an incredible success.

Today we’re celebrating 60 years of our national flag, and it’s an interesting reminder of how Canadians in the past thought of themselves as British. The idea of a new flag was jeered by many at the time.

Over time, we forged our own identity. And then Prime Minister Pearson understood that that sense of identity should be reflected by a unique flag of our own.

As Canadians, we are defined by many regional differences. Of course we are.

But we share values. Freedom, equality, and rule of law in our democracy. Honesty, hard work, and a sense of humour in our homes.

We are a multicultural country welcoming people of all creeds and colour.

And our sense of individualism sits alongside our sense of solidarity and concern for our neighbours.

We are good neighbours.

That means we show respect and we expect the same.

So don’t take our decency, kindness and generosity as a sign of weakness. We are also tough as nails and we persevere.

We live in one of the freest countries in the world. And it’s going to stay that way.

Share

Subscribe now

Of course, the US-Canada relationship and the real threat of tariffs have been, and will continue to be, the government’s primary focus. For example, at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Big City Mayors caucus this past week, we spoke about how to best prepare for the worst on tariffs, including supply chain disruptions and pricing uncertainty, and potential stimulus for capital projects.

I also shared my core priorities on the housing file with the big city mayors, which I laid out in this explainer video in greater detail.

Subscribe now

We’ll be doing deeper dives on these specific priorities in the coming weeks:

• Driving down the costs of home building: How can we best reduce taxes (including development charges), cut red tape and end exclusionary zoning, and drive innovation and economies of scale in home building?

• Re-investing in social and community housing: How can we double the amount of nonmarket housing over the next decade? We used to build much more community housing in this country and other countries build much more today.

• Ending homelessness: I did this deeper dive on a Housing First approach, the increased commitment from the feds to address homelessness through rapid housing and operational supports, and the growing challenges despite that substantial federal contribution.

• Treating housing as a home first and investment second: We should incentivize new investment in building homes across the housing continuum. But in a competition for existing homes, investment dollars shouldn’t displace affordability. We should look at all available rules to prioritize people who are buying houses as a place to call home.

• Canada-US relations and home construction: I didn’t touch on this in the above video, but about a month ago I did this explainer on tariffs, the trade deficit, border concerns, and why the Canada-US relationship should be built upon, not undermined. I’ll be doing an update given where we seem to be headed, potential impacts to my portfolio, and why we should continue to choose Canada.

If you’ve got other questions, we’ll work to answer those too by way of short video explainers or posts here. Just send us an email or post in the comments.

Thanks for following otherwise. And let’s stay strong, free, and united in the face of this serious threat to our economic and national interests from our long-standing ally.

We failed to defend it successfully.

Singh already walked away from consumer carbon pricing months ago. And now all LPC leadership candidates are ready to do the same.

We should all be embarrassed that we've let shameless politics kill a system that cost-effectively reduces pollution and ensures the poorest are overwhelmingly made better off.

We forget too easily that Harper, Poilievre, Manning and politicians who otherwise express unending devotion to free markets all previously supported carbon pricing.

Why? Because it's a market-based mechanism for reducing pollution, by internalizing a negative externality and driving innovation.

Too many too easily accept the lie that carbon pricing makes Canadians poorer.

Yes, it could have been better designed to recycle revenues in a more targeted way to working class families rather than universal payments. But the rebate system clearly made the poorest in our society better off.

So what happens now?

1) Fighting climate change gets more expensive for the taxpayer. Consumer carbon pricing only represented around 10% of emission reductions in the overall plan, so it's thankfully not fatal. But alternative subsidy approaches to reach the same cuts to pollution will cost us more.

2) The poorest will now be worse off. The rebate made most families whole on a fiscal basis, but the poorest in our society were much better off. Without the price on pollution, there's no revenue for the rebates.

I'm not new to politics. I understand the need to win to implement good ideas. But it's shameful that we've gotten to this place, where good ideas must be sacrificed to sustained lies.

LPC leadership contestants need to step up with better ideas now: on affordability, productivity, inequality, democratic reform, and climate action.

See also:

So here’s a final call to register to vote in the Liberal leadership race.

I have a ton of respect for my colleagues who are running for leader. We are lucky to have the quality of contestants in this race that we do.

My vote for the next leader will go to Mark Carney.

He’s serious and thoughtful.

He’s committed to economic and environmental sustainability.

And he brings a wealth of experience, having helped Canada navigate the Great Recession and the UK manage through Brexit.

With that experience, Mark is best placed to defend Canadian interests against the threat of tariffs.

He’s a strong contrast to Poilievre's cartoon slogans and shallow attacks.

And he's the right leader to protect our progress, and to build on it.

As Mark says: it is time to build.

Having just hosted an event with Mark in Beaches-East York, I can also say that he draws a real crowd. Canadians (from across the political spectrum) are looking for someone to vote for, rightly find the alternatives wanting, and see in Carney someone with substance.

And based on the faux rage-farming online from Poilievre’s team after Mark joined us for our event, it’s clear that his candidacy has them worried.

When Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, member of Parliament for Beaches-East York was sworn in as Minister of Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities last December, it was surely a mixed blessing. The rising-star MP was finally getting a cabinet portfolio. But he was being tasked with managing one of the toughest problems in Canada on a timeline that, depending on the next election, could be incredibly short.

But Erskine-Smith aims to make the most of things. In an interview that has been edited for clarity and length, he spoke about the Trudeau government’s successes and failures on the housing front, and why he’s looking forward to the months ahead, despite the challenges his party — and country — now face.

The federal government announced its national housing strategy in 2017, with the intention of reducing the number of people in housing need. Since then, that number has increased by 660,000. What went wrong?

With the national housing strategy there was, for the first time in decades, a reassertion of the federal role in housing. Was it sufficient to address the scale of the problem? No. We’ve got to double down. But the federal government can’t act alone. We need provincial leadership. We’re seeing success in some provinces, but Ontario is dragging the country down when it comes to housing starts.

Is it your opinion that the national housing strategy was doing the right things but at a scale that was incommensurate with the problem?

I would add that the 2017 version of the strategy was missing components. The original plan was focused on providing low-interest loans [to repair or build affordable homes. You’ve got to marry that loans program, though, with significant grants, specifically for non-profit housing. Recently, we’ve expanded the loans programs. We’ve also added the Housing Accelerator Fund to address red tape.

The Housing Accelerator Fund is money given to cities if they meet certain benchmarks in terms of red-tape reduction, yes?

Exactly. This was not part of the 2017 federal agenda but is now.

Recently, there’s also been a push to better use federally owned land — land that has, maybe, a two-storey post office or a parking lot on it.

We want to unlock those lands for housing.

Unlocking, I presume, means making the land available, perhaps at low cost or no cost, so that developers will build affordable or community housing?

Yes. This is where I see a contrast between our approach and what you hear from the federal Conservatives. They want to sell federal land off to the highest bidder. We want to partner with actors who are committed to affordability.

When it comes to housing, it seems, you want government to be both more and less involved. Fair?

Pierre Poilievre thinks the government should get out of the way entirely. I would say, no, the government should get out of the way specifically when there are barriers to the market building for the market. There are pain points — exclusionary zoning, excessive development charges — that must be removed. But the market is not going to deliver affordable housing, social housing, or community housing. So the government needs to reassert itself in those areas.

Your predecessor, Sean Fraser, made a comment in a Bloomberg interview, which seemed to imply that we can, somehow, make housing more affordable without undermining the value of people’s existing homes. I felt like he was evading the tension between the interests of people seeking to get into the market (who benefit when prices come down) versus people already in the market (who benefit when prices stay high).

It’s not the government’s job to say that a home should be a certain price, but we should be concerned when home prices run away from incomes. There is a generational unfairness to the housing market.

But the unfairness benefits certain people. Those people are voters. Many are Liberal voters. One question on my mind is: Why have governments been slow to address the housing crisis? One possible answer is that there are political incentives to move slowly. A lot of voters are, frankly, happy with the way things are.

I’m not going to disagree that there are competing interests in the housing market. But I think the question of “what price should a home be?” is a distraction. It’s not the government’s job to protect a certain amount of equity that has built up in a person’s home.

One criticism of programs that make it easier to buy a home is that they’re inflationary. If you’re not paying the land-transfer tax because you’re a first-time home buyer — or if you only need a 5 percent down payment instead of, say, 20 percent — then you have more financial leverage. You can bid higher, thereby driving prices up. Do you agree that these demand-side policies are counter-productive?

These policies tend to be put in place because they’re good politics. But if you’re solutions-oriented, you should be driving supply. As housing minister, I’m not going to push demand-driven policies.

You may not be housing minister for long. What can you do with the time you have?

There are three big categories. One is the Affordable Housing Fund, [which offers low-interest and forgivable loans to partnered organizations] and the Apartment Construction Loan Program. I’m leaning into those programs to prioritize social and non-profit housing and to get as many conditional approvals in place. The second piece is the $6 billion Housing Infrastructure Fund. You can think of it as the Housing Accelerator Fund 2.0. It’s focused on delivering for municipalities and provinces when they’re reducing red tape and stabilizing development charges. Ontario’s share is $2 billion. If we can’t get a deal done with Ontario, we’re going to do deals directly with municipalities. The third piece is around transit. I’m hoping to land a bigger deal with Toronto, and with other municipalities and provinces on transit, especially where there are ambitious proposals ready to go.

You’ve commented recently that the number one government priority is US-Canada relations. Housing is number two. But those issues are linked. A trade war could make housing construction more expensive at the exact moment we’re trying to make it cheaper.

A trade war is linked with all sorts of negative outcomes for our economy. We have to squarely focus our efforts on responding to the tariff threat — we have to make sure there are retaliatory measures in place — because it’s a threat across the board to productivity. But another threat to productivity is housing.

Can you explain why housing is a productivity issue?

If you can’t attract talented people because housing is too expensive, that’s a problem. Also, we need to be treating housing as a home first and investment second. I want to encourage investment dollars to come in to build housing. But it’s an unproductive use of investment dollars if people are just competing in the residential resale space.

The first time Trump was elected and there were threats of a trade war, the Trudeau government had a coordinated response. Seemingly everybody was talking with US business leaders and Republican operatives and state governors to counter Trump’s threat. Do you feel like the government is in a position to put up a united front again?

The prime minister has done this before, the government has done this before, and they’re ready to respond as necessary. But the difference is the timing of our electoral cycles. We’re facing repeated calls for an election from the Conservative opposition leader, who doesn’t want to be seen working with Trudeau at all.

To achieve a unified front, should the Liberals have acted faster to install a new leader and call an election?

Imagine we were in an election now. Do you think that would add stability or instability? I think it would add instability. And having stability, especially heading into the inauguration, is important for the same reason that it was important that the prime minister didn’t step down as prime minister. If he’d done that, we would have an interim leader who wouldn’t be able to hit the ground running. We’re going to have an election this year no matter what. Is it ideal in the context of the Trump tariffs? No. But that’s the world we live in.

Given the Trump threat, do you think ministers should not be running for party leader?

If I were a minister who was running in the leadership race, I would resign my portfolio.

I guess you’re not running then.

I am not.

Can the government respond to Trump without a parliament?

If you look at the first iteration of the response to Trump, it was a government response that was coordinated across party lines. It was not a parliamentary response. It will be important if the tariffs drag on into the spring— and if that response is not working — that there’s an accountability function for parliament to play. In the meantime, the government continues to govern.

What’s the mood like in the party now?

There’s a sense of optimism that this moment can be a reset. The timing is going to be short between the leadership race and the general election. So anyone who’s running for leadership has to think of this as one big race. They are introducing themselves to the Canadian public. There is an opportunity here to have a campaign of ideas, to establish renewal. There’s more optimism in the party than there’s been in a while. Whether it translates into better outcomes remains to be seen.

Original Article in the Toronto Star by Simon Lewsen. Check it out here.

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced that he won’t be the leader heading into the next election.

Now, I haven’t always seen eye to eye with him over the years, but Justin Trudeau loves this country, he’s deeply committed to public service and a progressive politics driven by fairness and sustainability, and I wouldn’t be in politics but for his call a decade ago to do things differently.

He described himself as a fighter in announcing his decision to stay on as Prime Minister while a new leader is selected by the Liberal Party.

For my part, I thought he was a class act in his short remarks, especially given how hard it must have been to give up the ball. Few true aces give up the ball without a fight. And he still believes he has so much fight left.

Of course, it’s not enough to be a fighter. A leader’s only as good as their team, and a messenger needs an audience that’s at least open to listening.

And for months we’ve inadvertently given Poilievre’s reform party politics a free pass when every question is palace intrigue on our end.

We needed certainty one way or the other.

And now we have it.

Prorogation isn’t exactly a word we hear every day. So let’s be clear about what it is and what it isn’t.

This is not some undemocratic shutdown of the country. This isn’t a caretaker situation. Our government will continue to govern the entire time.

I’m the Housing Minister, for example, with three months to get some important work done on social housing, encampments, and working with councils and provinces that agree to remove barriers to build.

There is absolutely nothing that stops that work.

Subscribe now

A prorogation simply means a parliamentary reset. All legislative work comes to an end and the legislative agenda is reset when we come back.

In this case, the Governor General granted the Prime Minister’s request for a prorogation until March 24.

It sounds longer than it is, because no Parliament sits every week. In Ontario, for example, after a parliamentary break from early June to mid-October, the legislature rose again in early December til early March. For really no good reason.

In contrast, this full reset will cost us a net loss of 4 weeks that Parliament would have otherwise sat between now and the end of March.

Given the current state of our parliamentary dysfunction, as this minority parliament veers into an election, almost all legislation has been stalled since early fall anyway. So losing 4 weeks of parliamentary sitting and resetting the legislative table isn’t exactly a real blow.

Instead, the time will ensure the government continues to deliver within existing authorities, that we have as much stability as possible heading into President Trump’s inauguration, and that we’ll have a shortened window to select a new leader to face off against the unserious duo of Pierre Poilievre and Jagmeet Singh.

To give Canadians a real choice.

The Liberal Party has an opportunity to embrace renewal and change. And Canadians and Liberal members can shape what that change looks like.

What approach do we want from our leaders? What ideas do we want to see championed? What kind of country do we want to live in?

There are already any number of potential leaders organizing for what will be a short race that should end in March.

I’m not on that list of potential leaders, by the way. But I do have some thoughts.

First, I am incredibly concerned by just how unserious our politics is becoming.

Poilievre and Singh offer anger, sure. And there’s a lot to be angry about at times.

But to the extent that that empathy is anything other than contrived, it should come with more than slogans for solutions.

We face an incredible challenge in President Trump, a housing crisis that has upended for an entire generation that core value of equality of opportunity, and global conflict and climate change that require collective action and leadership on the world stage.

In response? Poilievre, riding high in the polls, releases an amateur-hour video of personal attacks against Liberal Ministers, and calls Trudeau an authoritarian socialist, because what - we introduced childcare and carbon pricing? Canada’s history is one of social democracy, and the would-be Prime Minister doesn’t believe in basic social programs.

As far as approach goes, competence is an underrated value in politics and a serious and thoughtful politics would stand in stark contrast to what stands across the aisle.

To follow through on that approach requires a campaign of ideas. Yes, sure, some people will give out marks for being a good Liberal, whatever that means.

But the answer, the same as it has always been, is participation.

To win, we need people to see themselves in our next leader and party.

To be compelled and excited to participate.

For Canadians rightly angry about the cost of housing, the next leader needs to be seized with that frustration, empathetic to it, and deliver a comprehensive and more ambitious plan to address it.

Acknowledge imperfection in our efforts, be honest that nothing will be fixed overnight and clear that population growth and housing supply go hand in hand, emphasize the progress we’ve made in restoring the federal role because there has been significant progress, and protect and build on that progress, by matching the ambition this country had on housing, including social housing, until the 1980s.

For the 6 million Canadians who don’t have a family doctor, tell us that healthcare is a priority and how the next Liberal government will do everything in its spending power to tackle that most basic of needs.

Don’t walk away from commitments to sustainability and climate action, at a bare minimum. Build on those efforts. And hey, maybe revisit electoral reform?

Tell us what you’re going to do about the fact this is a country of oligopolies and the lack of competition across sectors comes at the expense of consumer protections and our pocket books. What’s the direction we should expect your government to take to address productivity?

Tell us what you think about fairness and how the government should address wealth inequality and help those in the greatest need. How you’ll match progressive policy action with fiscal discipline so that that progress is sustainable and lasting.

Yes, we need robust measures in place to address any prospect of foreign interference. But that doesn’t mean you can avoid having clearly defined views about Canada’s role on the world stage today.

I’m not asking for a detailed platform. I am asking for more than slogans. Don’t play it safe. Style AND substance would be nice.

Beyond ideas, we need a relentless focus on grassroots engagement. I ran in an open nomination a decade ago because of a commitment to more independence and a bottom-up approach to our politics.

What kind of party do you want to build and where do you think power should reside?

It’ll be a short race. But that doesn’t mean it should be short on ideas.

It’s not going to be enough to ask people to vote against Conservatives. What direction do we all want for our country?

Let’s give Canadians a positive reason to vote for us again.

Share

It was surreal in many ways, amid an already strange time in Ottawa. And I certainly felt more comfortable trading the pomp and circumstance of the morning for the transition binders of the afternoon.

Before doing that, I was asked by media why I’d made this decision and whether it means I’ll be running again in the next election.

Here’s what I said: I’m taking on this role to make the biggest difference I can.

Apart from Canada-US relations, housing is our most important challenge.

It’s a generational fairness challenge, with too many young people who are working as hard as their parents without the same opportunity. They can’t get ahead because the cost of housing has run away from incomes.

It’s also a productivity challenge. How can we expect talented people to stay here, work here, and help our country succeed, if they can’t afford to live here?

The homelessness we’ve seen grow across Canada is a direct consequence of a collective failure to deliver compassionate and effective solutions like Housing First.

When I shared the appointment news with my mom, she reminded me that our family lived in the Tommy Douglas co-op on River Street in Toronto when I was born. And there’s a lot more we need to do to close the gap between what Canadian governments used to invest in social and community housing versus the governments in my lifetime.

Sean Fraser is a good friend and he’s put a lot of work in to set us up for success (including a $1.5 billion program for a new generation of co-op housing). I hope to build on that work and, in doing so, to make the biggest difference that I can.

It won’t be without its challenges, of course, especially with a short runway and the ongoing palace intrigue around the Prime Minister and his future.

It’ll be an adjustment to go from MP to Minister. After all, I’ve been vocal, at times, in holding the government and Prime Minister accountable. I don’t intend to stop playing that role. I’ll just be doing it now around a table where it matters most.

The biggest challenge will be to the time with my young family.

About a year ago, after a relentless provincial leadership race, I decided not to run again and to spend more time with family. I do that gut check before every election, to figure out whether the personal sacrifice is worth the difference I’m able to make.

With this new role, there’s a bigger opportunity to make a difference.

I’ve received thousands of messages encouraging me to reconsider my decision with so much at stake in this election in particular.

And over the last year I’ve found a way to be very active in Canadian politics and also a good dad and husband. I coached my son’s baseball this summer, for example, and don’t see why I can’t be the Housing Minister and also an East York Baseball coach.

I know there’ll be some missed moments. Crawford turns 5 tomorrow. And while I was able to stuff a pinata with candy for yesterday’s party early in the morning before travel to Ottawa, I couldn’t get back in time to see him celebrate with his friends.

So no, it won’t be easy, but I’m confident I’ll be able to make it work. The opportunity to make a difference on important challenges is why I joined politics in the first place. And we need to protect our progress in an election where it is more at risk than ever.

Thank you to everyone in Beaches-East York who has been behind me, encouraged me, and trusted me to serve. I’ve written before that it’s the best job I’ll ever have, and I hope to continue to serve you as Housing Minister and as your MP as best as I can.