Category Archives: Political Analysis & Governance

Sharp, accessible writing on politics, leadership, and institutions at every level – local, provincial, national, and global. These posts weigh ideas and accountability with equal care, offering critique rooted in democratic values and public service experience.

Tewin and the Shape of Ottawa’s Future

Posted on by
Reply

At the moment, I don’t feel I know enough about this developing issue to take a position, so I plan on monitoring the situation and perhaps look at the bigger picture.  

Four years ago, Ottawa city council voted to expand the urban boundary into lands southeast of the city to create a massive new suburban community called Tewin. The project, a partnership between the Algonquins of Ontario (AOO) and Taggart Group, envisions housing for up to 45,000 people on 445 hectares of land. This expansion was one of the most controversial planning decisions of the last decade, both for its symbolic weight and its long-term implications. Today, councillor Theresa Kavanagh has re-opened the debate, proposing that Tewin be stripped from Ottawa’s Official Plan. Her efforts highlight the difficult choices cities face between growth, climate goals, and Indigenous reconciliation.

The Promise of Tewin
Supporters of Tewin present it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. For the Algonquins of Ontario, the project represents an unprecedented role in shaping Ottawa’s future. After centuries of dispossession, Tewin offers not only revenue streams and jobs but also visibility in the city’s urban fabric. This symbolic dimension, land not merely ceded or lost, but built upon in partnership, is difficult to dismiss.

Developers and some councillors also argue that Ottawa must accommodate population growth. With Canada’s immigration targets rising, pressure on housing supply is intense. Tewin promises tens of thousands of new homes, potentially designed with modern sustainability standards. Proponents emphasize that large master-planned communities can integrate parks, schools, and infrastructure in ways that piecemeal infill cannot. In this vision, Tewin is not sprawl, but a carefully designed city-within-a-city.

The Cost of Sprawl
Yet the critiques are no less powerful. City staff initially ranked the Tewin lands poorly during their 2020 evaluations, citing soil unsuitability, distance from infrastructure, and limited transit access. Servicing the site: extending water, sewers, and roads will cost nearly $600 million, much of it beyond the city’s 2046 planning horizon. These are funds that could otherwise reinforce existing communities, transit networks, and climate-resilient infrastructure.

Urban sprawl carries environmental and social costs. Tewin sits far from rail lines and job centres, ensuring that most residents will be dependent on cars. This contradicts Ottawa’s stated climate action commitments, which emphasize compact growth and reduced vehicle emissions. Critics also note that adding a massive suburb undermines efforts to intensify existing neighbourhoods, where transit and services are already in place.

Indigenous Voices, Indigenous Divisions
The Indigenous dimension of Tewin complicates the debate. On the one hand, the Algonquins of Ontario have secured a rare position as development partners, advancing reconciliation through economic participation. On the other hand, not all Algonquin communities recognize AOO’s legitimacy, and some argue that consultation has been narrow and exclusionary. The project thus embodies both progress and tension in the city’s relationship with Indigenous peoples. To reject Tewin outright risks appearing to dismiss Indigenous economic aspirations; to proceed with it risks deepening divisions and ignoring long-standing calls for more inclusive engagement.

A City at the Crossroads
Councillor Kavanagh’s push to remove Tewin from the Official Plan is more than a single motion. It reopens a philosophical question: what kind of city does Ottawa wish to become? If it seeks to embody climate leadership, resilient infrastructure, and walkable communities, Tewin appears to be a step backward. If it seeks to honour Indigenous partnership and ensure abundant housing supply, the project has undeniable appeal.

Ultimately, Tewin forces Ottawa to confront a contradiction at the heart of Canadian urbanism. We are a country that has promised climate action, but remains tethered to car-dependent suburbs. We are a nation that aspires to reconciliation, but often struggles to reconcile competing Indigenous voices. To move forward, Ottawa must do more than weigh costs and benefits; it must articulate a vision of growth that is both just and sustainable.

In this sense, Tewin is not merely a development proposal. It is a mirror held up to the city itself, reflecting both its aspirations and its unfinished work.

Sources:
• CTV News Ottawa. “Tewin development project passes latest hurdle but some say it still doesn’t belong.” August 2024. Link
• Ontario Construction News. “Ottawa councillor sparks renewed debate over controversial Tewin development.” April 2025. Link
• CTV News Ottawa. “Councillor withdraws motion to remove 15,000-home development from Ottawa’s Official Plan until after byelection.” April 2025. Link
• Horizon Ottawa. “Stop the Tewin Development.” Accessed October 2025. Link

When Confederation Feels Like Confrontation: Ontario and Quebec’s Alberta Dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

As I write in my Ottawa living room, and although my sympathies stretch eastward into Quebec and the Martimes, I am watching Alberta events on the evening news as if viewing a distant cousin gone rogue. From here, in Central Canada, we’ve built our identity on a tapestry of industrial dynamism, social progressiveness, and an uneasy, yet genuine, devotion to national unity. So when Alberta thunders about “owning” its oil sands, rails under federal pipeline delays, and threatens separatism with a bravado more suited to Texas than to the spirit of Confederation, it feels less like a debate among equals, and more like a family spat escalating into road rage.

The Great Divide
Central Canada’s frustration begins with a simple question: Why can’t Alberta appreciate that its prosperity rides on Canada’s backbone? We know well the clang of steel from Lake Ontario factories, the laboratories of McGill and U of T, the commuter trains of the GTA carrying workers into offices that fuel innovation, culture, and trade. We see our tax dollars flow westward into infrastructure grants and environmental clean‑ups, yet all we hear back is how Ottawa is strangling Alberta’s lifeblood. In boardrooms and bistros alike, we exchange incredulous glances. “Is that really how they see us?”

In Ontario’s legislature or Quebec City’s cafés, the lament is the same. Alberta’s insistence on unfettered resource development, against carbon pricing, against pipeline regulations, against the minimal environmental guardrails that we accept as part of modern governance, strikes us as not only shortsighted, but tone‑deaf. After all, we’re the ones negotiating trade deals abroad, keeping Canada’s credit rating intact, and answering to the world for our climate commitments. When Alberta rips up its federal‑provincial agreements, and paints itself as a victim, it risks making the rest of us look like oppressors.

When Conservatives Moved the Needle
It wasn’t a personal chemistry with any one leader that mattered so much as policy alignment. Under Conservative governments, particularly during the years following 2006, Ottawa embraced free‑market principles that resonated deeply in Alberta: lower corporate taxes, streamlined approvals, and a lighter regulatory touch on energy projects. This wasn’t about nostalgia for a single prime minister, but about a political philosophy that saw energy as an engine of growth, not a problem to be managed.

From Alberta’s perspective, deregulated markets and balanced budgets felt like recognition of its core economic values. In Central Canada, we may have questioned some of those choices, but we accepted that a spectrum of economic approaches made Canada stronger. The result was a pragmatic détente: pipelines moved forward, investment flowed, and while we debated environmental trade‑offs, there was at least mutual respect for each region’s priorities.

When Regionalism Becomes Roadblock
Today, the rhetoric out west often sounds like, “Build the pipeline, or we’ll build our own exit ramp.” Yet Central Canada knows unequivocally that there is no exit ramp. Our factories, hospitals, and schools depend on the interprovincial movement of people, goods, and capital. The same pipelines Alberta demands are the conduits that keep our cars running, and our manufacturing humming. When Alberta complains that Ottawa’s carbon tax is an “Ottawa cash grab,” it ignores that those funds have helped pay for the recent transit expansions in Edmonton and Calgary, along with the wastewater infrastructure upgrades in Lethbridge.

Even more galling is the separatist thunder: poll after poll invites alarm with one in three Albertans saying they might consider leaving Canada under a Liberal government, feels like a hostage‑negotiation tactic, rather than a legitimate policy platform. Central Canada hears the echoes of Texas secession talk, fireworks and flags, bravado and bluster, but we see the policy vacuum behind the spectacle. We wonder: can they name a single agreement on the global stage that would willingly recognize a 4.4 million‑person “Republic of Alberta”? Or do they really believe they can simply flip a switch and declare independence?

Progressive Values Under Siege
For all our differences, Central Canada prides itself on progressive values: public healthcare that is universal, environmental targets that align with global science, and social policies that aim to reduce inequality. We do not see these as luxuries, but as imperatives for a 21st century nation. So when Alberta snarls at any shift toward renewable energy or regulatory tightening, we perceive a rejection, not only of policy, but of shared national values. It’s as if Alberta believes that “progressive” is a dirty word, an urban‑elitist dictate, rather than a democratic choice.

The result is a mutual distrust. We view Alberta as obstinate, and uncooperative; they view us as meddlesome and judgmental. And somewhere in the commotion, Canada the country begins to feel less like “one nation” and more like warring fiefdoms.

Pathways to Reconciliation
Even as Central Canadians exhale in frustration, we still cling to the idea that this can be repaired. We remember that the Constitution, our shared contract, grants Alberta ownership of its resources (Section 92A), but also vests Ottawa with authority over interprovincial trade, environmental standards, and national unity. Those overlapping jurisdictions are not battlegrounds to be won; they are negotiation tables to be inhabited with respect.

Here’s what we in the centre would propose:
1. Joint Stewardship Councils
Permanent federal‑provincial bodies—one on energy and one on climate—co‑chaired by ministers from Ottawa and Edmonton, with rotating seats for other provinces. Their mandate: to align pipelines, carbon policy, and regional development in a single coherent plan.
2. Mutual Accountability Reporting
Instead of one‑way complaints, require quarterly reports on how federal actions affect provincial economies and vice versa, published publicly so Albertans and Ontarians alike can see the trade‑offs.
3. Shared Diversification Funds
A federally matched investment fund for Alberta to channel resource revenues into hydrogen, critical minerals, and technology hubs—mirroring grants Ontario and Quebec receive for their own diversification.
4. Cultural Exchange Programs
Scholarships and internships pairing Alberta students with agencies in Ottawa, and Central Canadians with energy‑sector positions in Calgary and Fort McMurray, because trust grows when people move across the lines, not when walls go up.

Towards a True Confederation
As I look east from Ontario or west from Quebec, I still see Alberta as part of Canada’s grand promise, a province of immense resources, entrepreneurial spirit, and resilient people. But a promise requires reciprocity. If Alberta wants the benefits of the Canadian federation, it must share responsibility for national projects, ideals, and compromises. And if Central Canada wants Alberta to feel at home in Confederation, we must speak not with condescension, but with open hands and honest trade‑offs.

In the end, Texas doesn’t have to be our model, and neither does Paris or Beijing. We can be distinctly Canadian: united not in uniformity, but in a federalism that accepts our regional flavors and binds them together in mutual respect. Only then will Alberta’s roar feel like a proud Canadian voice, rather than an echo of someone shouting from outside our walls.

Five Things We Learned This Week

Posted on by
Reply

Week of October 25–31, 2025

A week of extreme weather, big geopolitical tests, market moves and wrenching human stories. Here are five items you should know from Oct 25 – 31, 2025.

🌪️ Hurricane Melissa devastates parts of the Caribbean (Oct 28–30)

Hurricane Melissa slammed Jamaica and battered Cuba and Haiti, becoming Jamaica’s strongest-ever recorded storm and causing dozens of deaths, widespread flooding and tens of thousands displaced. Recovery and humanitarian relief are now the immediate priorities.

Why it matters: The storm’s intensity underscores how warming seas are amplifying disaster risk for island nations.

Source: Reuters Caribbean Service, BBC Weather Centre (Oct 28–30 2025).

💱 U.S. raises tariffs on Canada by 10% (Oct 25)

In a surprise move on Oct 25 the U.S. announced a 10% tariff increase on many Canadian goods — a sharp escalation in trade friction between the two neighbours and one likely to reverberate across supply chains and markets.

Why it matters: Trade spats between major partners affect jobs, currency values and consumer prices across North America.

Source: Bloomberg Markets, Globe and Mail Business (Oct 25 2025).

🔬 Russia says it tested a new nuclear-powered cruise missile (Oct 26)

Moscow reported a successful test of its nuclear-powered Burevestnik cruise missile on Oct 26, a claim that, if true, carries major implications for strategic stability and arms-control debates.

Why it matters: Such weapons could bypass existing defence systems and complicate future nuclear treaty negotiations.

Source: BBC World Service, Al Jazeera Defense Desk (Oct 26 2025).

📉 Fed cuts rates but Powell warns December is not guaranteed (Oct 29)

On Oct 29 the Federal Reserve cut its policy rate by 25 basis points; Chair Jerome Powell cautioned markets that another cut in December was not assured, a comment that pushed volatility and trimmed some of the initial market rally.

Why it matters: Interest-rate signals guide global credit flows and influence currencies and investment strategy worldwide.

Source: Reuters Finance, Wall Street Journal (Oct 29 2025).

⚖️ Red Cross hands over body of a deceased hostage from Gaza (Oct 27)

The International Committee of the Red Cross transferred the body of a deceased hostage from Gaza to Israeli authorities on Oct 27, a grim and sensitive development in the ongoing aftermath of the conflict and hostage exchanges.

Why it matters: Humanitarian operations in conflict zones require trust and neutrality — both fragile but essential qualities for any future peace process.

Source: Associated Press, Haaretz, ICRC statement (Oct 27 2025).

Closing thoughts: This week juxtaposed planetary fury and planetary politics: a rapidly intensifying hurricane underlines climate vulnerability while tariffs, weapons tests and uneasy ceasefire aftermaths show how geopolitics and economics can shift quickly. All events have been verified to fall inside Oct 25 – 31 2025.

Results Over Bureaucracy: Transforming Federal Management and Workforce Planning

Posted on by
Reply

Canada’s federal government employs hundreds of thousands of people, yet far too often, success is measured by inputs rather than results. Hours worked, meetings attended, or forms completed dominate performance metrics, while citizens experience delays, inconsistent service, and bureaucratic frustration. Prime Minister Mark Carney has an opportunity to change this by embracing outcomes-based management and coupling it with a planned reduction of the federal workforce—a strategy that improves efficiency without undermining service delivery.

The case for outcomes-based management
Currently, federal management emphasizes process compliance over actual impact. Staff are assessed on whether they followed procedures, logged sufficient hours, or completed internal forms. While accountability is important, focusing on inputs rather than outputs fosters risk aversion, discourages initiative, and prioritizes process over public value.

Outcomes-based management flips this paradigm. Departments and employees are held accountable for tangible results: timeliness, accuracy, citizen satisfaction, and measurable program goals. Performance evaluation becomes tied to impact rather than paperwork. Managers are empowered to allocate resources strategically, encourage innovation, and remove obstacles that slow delivery. Employees gain clarity on expectations, flexibility in execution, and motivation to improve services.

This approach is widely recognized internationally as best practice in public administration. Governments that adopt outcomes-focused management report faster service delivery, higher citizen satisfaction, and better use of limited resources. It is a tool for effectiveness as much as efficiency.

Planned workforce reduction: 5% annually
Outcomes-based management alone does not shrink government, but it creates the environment to do so responsibly. With clearer accountability for results, the government can reduce headcount without impairing services. A planned 5% annual reduction over five years, achieved through retirements, attrition, and more selective hiring, offers a predictable, sustainable path to a smaller, more focused public service.

No mass layoffs are necessary. Instead, positions are left unfilled where feasible, and recruitment is limited to essential roles. Over five years, the workforce contracts by approximately 23%, freeing funds for high-priority programs while maintaining core services. At the end of the cycle, a full review assesses outcomes: delivery quality, service metrics, and costs. Adjustments can be made if reductions have inadvertently affected citizens’ experience.

Synergy with the other reforms
This plan works hand-in-hand with the other two reforms proposed: eliminating internal cost recovery and adopting a single pay scale with one bargaining agent. With fewer staff and a streamlined compensation system, management gains greater clarity and control. Removing internal billing and administrative overhead frees staff to focus on outcomes, while a unified pay scale ensures fair and consistent compensation as the workforce shrinks. Together, these reforms create a coherent, accountable, and modern public service.

Benefits for Canadians
Outcomes-based management and planned workforce reduction offer multiple benefits:
1. Efficiency gains: Staff focus on work that delivers measurable results rather than administrative juggling.
2. Cost savings: Attrition-based reductions lower salary and benefits expenditures without disruptive layoffs.
3. Transparency: Clear metrics demonstrate value to taxpayers, building public trust.
4. Resilience and innovation: Departments adapt faster, encouraging problem-solving and continuous improvement.

Political and administrative feasibility
Canada has successfully experimented with elements of outcomes-based management in programs such as the Treasury Board’s Results-Based Management Framework and departmental performance agreements. These initiatives demonstrate that the federal bureaucracy can shift focus from inputs to results if given clear mandates and strong leadership. Coupled with a predictable downsizing plan, the government can modernize staffing while maintaining accountability and service quality.

A smarter, results-driven public service
Prime Minister Carney has the opportunity to reshape Ottawa’s culture. Moving from input-focused bureaucracy to outcomes-based management, and pairing it with a responsible workforce reduction, creates a public service that delivers more for less. Citizens experience faster, more reliable services; employees understand expectations and have clarity in their roles; and the government maximizes value from every dollar spent.

Together with eliminating internal cost recovery and adopting a single pay scale, this reform completes a trio of policies that make the federal government smaller, smarter, and more accountable. Canadians deserve a public service focused not on paperwork, but on results that matter. This is the path to a modern, efficient, and effective Ottawa.

Lansdowne 2.0: The half-billion-dollar deal that asks Ottawa to trust again

Posted on by
Reply

There are moments in a city’s life when the decisions made at council chambers shape not just its skyline, but its soul. The redevelopment of Lansdowne Park has entered such a moment. The City calls it Lansdowne 2.0. Once again we are asked to believe that this time things will finally work out. I am respectfully saying: no thank you.

I support investing in our city’s infrastructure, in affordable housing, and in vibrant community spaces, but I am deeply opposed to the kind of public-private partnership (PPP) model that Ottawa keeps repeating – especially when the affordable housing promise is quietly reduced, when the public carries the risk, and the private partner walks away with much of the upside.

In the case of Lansdowne 2.0, the City and its private partner, Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group (OSEG), propose to rebuild the north-side stands and arena, build new housing towers, bring retail/condo podiums, and “revitalize” the site. The projected cost is now $419 million, according to City documents. The City’s Auditor General warns the cost could be as much as $74-75 million more and that revenues may fall short by $10-30 million or more. That alone should give us pause, but the real problem goes beyond the balance sheet.

The public-private problem
The idea of PPPs sounds appealing: share risk, leverage private capital, deliver publicly beneficial projects faster. But the repeated pattern in Ottawa is that the public land, public debt and public oversight become the junior partner in the deal. When good times happen, the private side takes the returns; when costs rise or revenues shrink, the City and the taxpayer carry the burden. We know this from Lansdowne 1.0 and from other large projects in the city. The question is not simply “Is this a partnership?” but “Who bears the downside when things go off plan?”

The Auditor General’s review of Lansdowne 2.0 flagged that the City is “responsible for the cost of construction…..and any cost overruns” even though much of the revenue upside depends on later ‘waterfall’ arrivals. If we’re asked to commit hundreds of millions now in the hope of returns later, we must demand transparency, risk caps, guaranteed affordable housing and binding public-benefit commitments. Anything less is not renewal, it’s risk-shifting.

Affordable housing is not optional
At a time when Ottawa faces an acute housing affordability crisis, we are told that “housing towers” are part of the funding model for Lansdowne. But the developer’s track-record of promising affordable units, and then claiming they can’t deliver is worn and familiar. In the updated Lansdowne plan the number of guaranteed affordable units was cut or deferred and shifted toward “air-rights” revenues and condo sales, effectively betting public good on speculative real estate. Affordable housing should not be a line-item to trim when the spreadsheets wobble. It is the social licence that allows private profit on public land. Approving a plan that pares back affordable units yet asks for public exposure is indefensible.

Traffic, transit and neighbourhood liveability
The Lansdowne site sits beside the Rideau Canal, the Glebe and the Bank Street corridor – one of the most traffic-choked corridors in the city. Yet the plan envisions adding 770 new residential units (down from an original 1,200) on top of retail podiums. Meanwhile, the city’s own “Bank Street Active Transportation and Transit Priority Feasibility Study” (June 2024) underlines that Bank Street is already at capacity for cars and buses, that pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is insufficient and that any added vehicle traffic will further degrade mobility.

Without a clear strategy to manage car access, parking, transit loads, cycling/pedestrian safety and construction impacts, this redevelopment risks worsening gridlock and degrading the very neighbourhood livability the project claims to enhance.

Sports tenants and viability
One of the central rationales for Lansdowne 2.0 is that the existing arena and stands are aging and that new facilities will retain sports franchises and major events. Yet the plan, as approved, reduces capacity for hockey to 5,500 seats and concerts to around 6,500 – considerably smaller than many mid-sized arenas. Meanwhile, neighbouring downtown developments such as the proposed new arena for the Ottawa Senators raise questions: what is Lansdowne’s tenant strategy once the major franchise relocates? If the largest anchor tenant leaves, the revenue model collapses. The City is committing hundreds of millions without a transparent long-term sports strategy. Sports teams argue they cannot stay if capacity or amenities shrink. If they depart, the burden falls back on taxpayers.

Commercial podiums and vacant retail
The redevelopment includes a shift from 108,000 square feet of retail to 49,000 square feet; a cut because local business viability was weak in the first phase. Even today many of the commercial units around Lansdowne 1.0 remain vacant because rents are too high for independent businesses and the location’s infrastructure doesn’t support consistent foot traffic outside game days. The plan’s assumption that retail will compensate for public investment is shaky at best. Until we see real evidence of market demand and rental levels that support small business and serve neighbourhoods, not just downtown condo-dwellers, we are betting public money on commercial models that already failed once.

The opportunity cost
Let’s not forget what’s at stake. Nearly half a billion dollars in public exposure. Imagine what that money could do across the city: hundreds of affordable housing units in multiple wards, refurbished community centres, libraries, rinks, park renewal, neighbourhood transit links. Instead, we’re being asked to invest that money in one downtown site, tied to a private partner’s spreadsheet and future real-estate and event-market assumptions. This is a question of equity: do we serve one marquee site or many? Do we favour single big deals or dozens of small, proven community-led investments?

A better path forward
I believe in renewal. I believe Lansdowne and its broader site matter. But I cannot support the current model unless three things change:
1. Full transparency: release the full pro-forma, risk tables, debt-servicing schedules, and waterfall projections.
2. Binding affordable-housing guarantees: not aspirational “10 per cent of air-rights revenue,” but concrete units or legally-binding contributions to affordable-housing stock.
3. An urban-livability strategy: traffic and transit modelling for Bank Street and the Glebe; tenant guarantees for sports franchises; a retail strategy that supports small local business; and a cap on public exposure in cost overruns.

If a deal only works when the public is last in line for returns, when affordable housing is trimmed, when traffic worsens and local business fails, then we shouldn’t do it. That is not civic renewal. It is a subsidy for speculative dysfunction.

Public land, public money, public trust. If those three are not aligned, the right move is not to sign another 40-year partnership and hope for the best. It is to pause, open the books, redesign the deal and ensure the structure serves the city first, not the private partner. Ottawa can build better than this. It just needs to decide whose interests it wants to serve.

Sources:
• CityNews Ottawa: OSEG revamp cost jumps to $419 M.
• City of Ottawa / Engage Ottawa: Lansdowne 2.0 project/funding details.
• Auditor General of Ottawa: cost under-estimation, financial risk.
• Glebe Report: traffic/transportation study on Bank Street.

Good Cop, Bad Cop, and the Ghost of Ronald Reagan

Posted on by
Reply

The latest Canada-U.S. flare-up could almost be mistaken for political theatre. On one side of the stage, Ontario Premier Doug Ford channels a hard-nosed populist energy that plays perfectly to American conservative media. On the other, Prime Minister Mark Carney performs the part of the calm, worldly statesman who reassures allies that Canada still wants dialogue. Together they have turned a difficult trade moment with Donald Trump into something that looks suspiciously like a good-cop, bad-cop routine.

The flashpoint came when Ford’s government released an advertisement in mid-October quoting Ronald Reagan’s 1987 radio address on free trade. Using Reagan’s own words, “Over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries.” The ad struck a nerve south of the border. Ford’s communications team framed the clip as a warning to Trump not to reignite trade wars that would hurt both economies. The Reagan Foundation objected, calling it a misrepresentation and claiming no permission had been granted to edit the footage, but the real explosion came from Trump himself.

Within hours, Trump denounced the video as “fake,” accused Canada of using “fraudulent propaganda,” and declared that “all trade negotiations with Canada are hereby terminated.” The social-media fireworks were vintage Trump – equal parts bluster and strategy. Yet the Canadian side, particularly Carney, appeared unruffled. His office reiterated that Canada remained open to dialogue and emphasized the importance of “mutual respect.” It was classic de-escalation language, signalling steadiness in the face of chaos.

Ford, meanwhile, looked quite comfortable being the villain of the week in Washington. His supporters at home applauded the move as patriotic spine, and conservative talk shows in the U.S. replayed the Reagan clip endlessly. For Ford, this was not just about Ottawa’s trade posture, it was also domestic optics. Standing up to Trump sells well in parts of Ontario, but so does invoking Reagan, a hero to many small-c conservatives. The ad’s provocation was almost certainly deliberate.

Carney’s response complemented Ford’s aggression in a way that looked suspiciously coordinated. While Ford’s office blasted American protectionism, Carney quietly engaged in back-channel diplomacy. Reports from Washington described him as “measured but firm,” assuring Trump that Canada sought cooperation but could not accept one-sided terms. The effect was to let Ford raise the temperature so Carney could later cool it down, extracting concessions or at least opening a channel for reason.

For all its drama, the episode underscored a larger point about Canadian strategy. With Trump back in the White House and America’s politics as volatile as ever, Canada seems to be experimenting with pressure and persuasion in tandem. Ford’s bluster makes Carney’s calm look even more statesmanlike, while Carney’s civility makes Ford’s fury appear authentic rather than reckless. It is a risky dance, but one that may keep Trump guessing and Canada’s interests protected.

Whether the Reagan ad was a blunder or a calculated feint, it has achieved something no memo ever could: it reminded Washington that Canada can still play hardball, and that even ghosts from the Gipper’s era can be drafted into the game.

Finally, as a side note, perhaps Ford is double dipping a little bit, by using the Bad Cop routine to catalyze a run at the federal Conservative leadership. 

Sources:
Business Insider,
Politico,
AP News,
The Independent,
Reuters.

Five Things We Learned This Week

Posted on by
Reply

Week of October 18–24, 2025

This week mixed mass protest, big diplomacy, security planning and political theater. Here are five items that mattered between Oct 18 and Oct 24, 2025.

✊ No Kings — mass protests against Trump draw huge crowds (Oct 18–19)

Thousands of people joined “No Kings” rallies across U.S. cities and internationally on Oct 18–19, denouncing perceived autocratic moves by President Trump. Organizers reported millions taking part in thousands of marches; coverage described largely peaceful, high-energy demonstrations.

Why it matters: The scale shows sustained, organized civic resistance and will shape political messaging and mobilization ahead of coming months.

Sources: Multiple international outlets including Reuters, BBC, and AP reporting (Oct 18–19 2025).

🏛️ “Coalition of the willing” forms in London as Starmer, Zelenskyy pledge tougher action on Russian oil (Oct 24)

At a high-profile London meeting on Oct 24, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy joined European partners to pledge steps aimed at choking off Russian oil revenues and accelerating use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. Leaders signaled coordinated action before year-end.

Why it matters: Targeting energy revenues would hit a major funding source for Russia’s war effort and represents a faster, coordinated European policy shift.

Source: The Guardian, BBC News, Politico Europe (Oct 24 2025).

🕊️ U.S. plots international stabilisation force and logistics hub to support Gaza ceasefire (Oct 24)

Reporting this week detailed U.S. plans to create an international force and bolster cargo/logistics hubs — centred on Egypt and neighbouring ports — to support stabilization and aid delivery in Gaza if a ceasefire deal advances. The effort aims to address security and humanitarian flow challenges.

Why it matters: If implemented, an international stabilisation and logistics architecture could materially improve humanitarian access and enforce ceasefire terms.

Source: The Washington Post, Al Jazeera, Haaretz (Oct 24 2025).

🌏 China’s Xi to visit South Korea for APEC (announced Oct 24)

China announced President Xi Jinping will travel to South Korea for the APEC summit (Oct 30–Nov 1) — a high-visibility regional trip that may include bilateral talks and signals China’s diplomatic calendar ahead of a likely US-China meeting.

Why it matters: Xi’s attendance sharpens the diplomatic spotlight on Asia-Pacific trade and could set the stage for high-stakes U.S.–China engagements.

Source: South China Morning Post, Reuters Asia, Yonhap News (Oct 24 2025).

🗣️ Senator Jeff Merkley delivers marathon speech opposing administration agenda (Oct 22)

On Oct 22 Senator Jeff Merkley completed a prolonged floor speech criticizing aspects of the President’s agenda and administration actions — a sustained act of Senate opposition during a fraught political period.

Why it matters: High-profile parliamentary pressure like this can slow or spotlight policy moves and energize public debate.

Source: C-SPAN, The Hill, New York Times (Oct 22 2025).

Closing thoughts: This week showed civic energy (mass demonstrations), diplomatic gearing (coalitions and summit visits), and practical planning for wartime stabilization and humanitarian delivery. Each story — whether in the streets or at summit tables — could change policy levers and public sentiment in the weeks ahead. All events were verified to have occurred between Oct 18 and Oct 24 2025.

Food Security Requires a Canadian Grocery Fairness Act to Break the Supermarket Cartel

Posted on by
Reply

Food prices in Canada are now so high that a growing share of households are skipping meals or relying on food banks, yet the country’s dominant grocery chains continue to post record profits. It’s an economic contradiction that Canadians are no longer willing to ignore. After years of voluntary codes, polite meetings with industry leaders, and vague promises of self-regulation, the time has come for Parliament to act. Canada needs a Grocery Fairness and Anti-Cartel Act to restore competition, transparency, and trust in the food supply.

The data are damning. Between 2019 and 2024, grocery prices rose by more than 25 percent, outpacing both wages and overall inflation. Meanwhile, profit margins at the country’s three dominant players, Loblaw, Sobeys’ parent company Empire, and Metro, reached their highest levels in decades. These three corporations control nearly 60 percent of the national grocery market and, in some provinces, more than 75 percent. Despite the removal of gas taxes and a slowdown in supply chain costs, prices have not come down. The explanation is simple: the grocery sector operates as a de facto cartel.

Canadians have seen evidence of this before. In 2018, a major bread price-fixing scandal revealed collusion among suppliers and retailers that spanned more than a decade. The Competition Bureau’s investigation led to fines and admissions of wrongdoing, but no lasting structural change. The same corporate families and alliances continue to dominate shelf space, dictate supplier terms, and shape consumer prices. Voluntary codes have done little to curb their power. When a handful of companies can quietly move in lockstep on pricing, even without explicit collusion, the outcome is the same: higher costs for everyone else.

A Grocery Fairness Act would not be radical. It would simply align Canada with the kind of market safeguards that already exist in other developed economies. The United Kingdom established a Groceries Code Adjudicator in 2013 to oversee fair dealing between supermarkets and suppliers. The European Union enforces strict competition rules that prevent excessive market dominance and punish “tacit collusion.” Canada, by contrast, still relies on a Competition Act designed for a different era, one that assumes the threat to markets comes from explicit conspiracies rather than structural concentration.

The model law proposed by several economists and policy experts would impose a national market-share limit of 15 percent per grocery chain, and 25 percent in any province. Companies that exceed those thresholds would be required to divest stores or brands until the market is more balanced. It would also make the existing Grocery Code of Conduct legally binding rather than voluntary, ensuring that farmers and small suppliers are protected from arbitrary fees, delisting threats, and other coercive practices.

Most importantly, the law would require large grocers to publish detailed pricing and profit data by category, showing whether retail increases are justified by rising costs. If a chain’s margins expand while input costs stay flat, the public deserves to know. Transparency alone would discourage the kind of quiet, parallel pricing behaviour that has become the norm.

Critics will call this “interference in the market,” but the truth is that Canada no longer has a functioning grocery market in the classical sense. When three firms dominate distribution, logistics, and supply contracts, the market’s self-correcting mechanisms are broken. Economists call it “oligopolistic coordination”; ordinary Canadians call it being gouged at the checkout.

Breaking up concentration would also open the door to regional cooperatives, independent grocers, and Indigenous food enterprises that have been squeezed out of distribution networks. Local ownership builds resilience, especially in rural and northern communities where dependence on a single chain often leads to higher costs and poorer food access.

There is also a broader principle at stake: when corporations profit from a basic human necessity, government has a duty to ensure that profit is earned through efficiency, not exploitation. If the banking sector can be regulated for systemic risk and telecommunications companies for fair access, surely food, the most essential of goods, deserves the same scrutiny.

Canada’s political establishment has been slow to move. The federal government has encouraged the large chains to sign a voluntary code, but participation remains partial and unenforced. Provinces have little power to act independently. The result is a cycle of press releases, hearings, and photo opportunities, while the price of a loaf of bread continues to climb.

A Grocery Fairness and Anti-Cartel Act would mark a decisive shift. It would give the Competition Bureau real structural tools rather than case-by-case investigations. It would make transparency mandatory and collusion punishable by substantial fines or even criminal liability for executives. Most importantly, it would restore the principle that essential markets exist to serve citizens, not to enrich monopolies.

Canada prides itself on fairness. Yet fairness in the grocery aisle has become an illusion. If Parliament wants to restore public confidence and make life affordable again, it should begin not with subsidies or rebates, but with the courage to challenge the corporate concentration that underlies the problem. The country needs a real grocery market, competitive, transparent, and accountable. Anything less is a betrayal of every Canadian who still believes that food should be priced by cost, not by cartel.

Sources:
Statistics Canada, Consumer Price Index data 2019–2024;
Competition Bureau of Canada, Bread Price-Fixing Investigation Report (2018);
Office for National Statistics (UK), Groceries Code Adjudicator Review 2023;
European Commission, Competition Regulation 1/2003.

One Scale, One Union: Simplifying Federal Compensation for a Modern Public Service

Posted on by
Reply

Canada’s federal workforce is a patchwork of pay scales, bargaining units, and special arrangements that often pay employees differently for similar work. This complexity creates inefficiency, confuses managers, and undermines transparency. For decades, the federal government has wrestled with these issues, attempting harmonization through studies and pilot projects, but meaningful reform has never been fully implemented.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has the opportunity to finally address this problem by creating a single pay scale for all new hires and promotions, with a central bargaining agent to represent them. Starting April 1, 2027, this reform would apply to every new employee and to anyone promoted after that date. Over time, as legacy employees retire, the workforce would converge under a single, transparent framework, vastly simplifying management and reducing administrative costs.

The current problem
Federal employees are currently represented by multiple unions, covered under different collective agreements, and paid according to a variety of classification systems. Two employees performing essentially the same job in different departments may have different pay scales, benefits, and promotion paths. This complexity creates friction: managers spend more time navigating pay rules than supervising staff, bargaining is prolonged and repetitive, and HR systems are costly to maintain.

Promotions often compound the problem. Without a unified framework, employees may move between roles under different rules or remain in outdated pay bands indefinitely. This creates inequities and prevents the workforce from operating as a coherent system.

A proven foundation exists
Importantly, Canada has not been starting from scratch. During the 1990s, the federal government explored harmonizing job classifications and pay structures under the Universal Classification Standard (UCS) project. The Treasury Board and Public Service Commission produced extensive documentation, job definitions, and classification guidelines. Additional studies, such as the PS2000 project, analyzed potential efficiencies and pathways for standardization. Much of this work remains relevant today.

By leveraging existing frameworks, the government can implement a single pay scale and central bargaining agent far more quickly than starting from scratch. The definitions, classification structures, and analyses already exist, they need modernization, updating for today’s workforce, and political will to implement.

The proposal: one pay scale, one bargaining agent
The plan is straightforward. Starting April 1, 2027:
1. All new hires enter the federal public service under a single UCS-style pay scale, with clear levels tied to responsibility, experience, and job complexity.
2. Any promotions after this date automatically shift employees to the UCS-style scale and the central bargaining agent, ensuring convergence over time.
3. A single central bargaining agent represents all employees on the UVS scale, whether it is a restructured existing union or a newly created organization.

This approach eliminates the patchwork of bargaining units, reduces negotiation complexity, and ensures equitable pay and promotion practices. Employees understand where they fit in the system, managers can deploy staff more effectively, and the public service as a whole becomes easier to administer.

Benefits for government and taxpayers
A single pay scale reduces administrative overhead, simplifies HR planning, and facilitates mobility between departments. One bargaining agent prevents overlapping negotiations, saving months of time and tens of millions in potential costs. By tying promotions to the UCS system, inequities between legacy and new employees shrink naturally over time.

For taxpayers, the benefits are equally clear. Streamlined payroll systems, reduced HR costs, and more predictable budgeting allow funds to be redirected from administrative complexity into actual service delivery. Employees benefit from transparent, fair, and consistent compensation, while management gains clarity and flexibility.

Building a coherent, modern workforce
Canada’s federal public service is one of the largest in the developed world. To make it efficient, equitable, and responsive, it must operate on clear, uniform principles. A single pay scale and central bargaining agent, applied to new hires and promotions after April 1, 2027, provides exactly that.

This reform is achievable because the groundwork is already laid. The challenge is not designing the system, it is implementing it decisively. By building on past harmonization efforts and committing to a transparent framework, Carney can create a public service that is fairer for employees, easier for managers to oversee, and more accountable to Canadians.

Canada can no longer tolerate a federal workforce fragmented by pay scales, bargaining units, and inconsistent policies. One scale, one union, and a commitment to transparency is the path forward.

Project Ontario and Project 2025: Parallel Conservative Blueprints

Posted on by
Reply

The emergence of Project Ontario marks a new phase in Canadian conservative politics. While Premier Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives hold a comfortable majority, a group of policy advocates, commentators, and activists argue that his government has strayed too far from conservative principles. Through Project Ontario, they are pressing for a return to fiscal discipline, smaller government, and freer markets. The initiative is not a political party but a policy and advocacy movement aimed at shaping the direction of Ontario’s right. In many ways, it mirrors the role of Project 2025 in the United States: a blueprint designed to realign governance around more ideologically driven goals.

Project Ontario made its debut with a call for an autumn assembly of conservative thinkers, strategists, and policy experts. Its agenda emphasizes cutting red tape, lowering or reforming taxes, encouraging school choice, and tackling Ontario’s lagging productivity. Health care reform and housing affordability also feature heavily, framed through the lens of efficiency and deregulation. The group’s intellectual backbone comes from figures like Ginny Roth, Josh Dehaas, and Adam Zivo, with ties to institutions such as the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the National Citizens Coalition. While the initiative presents itself as grassroots, it is clearly embedded within conservative policy networks.

Doug Ford has publicly dismissed Project Ontario, branding its supporters as “radical right” and “yahoos.” His sharp rejection underlines the political tension: while Ford governs from a pragmatic, populist center-right position, Project Ontario represents conservatives dissatisfied with compromise, seeking to tighten the ideological screws.

South of the border, Project 2025 represents the same instinct at a far larger scale. Organized by The Heritage Foundation, it is a sweeping plan to prepare a conservative administration for 2025. The nearly 900-page Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise lays out detailed proposals for reshaping the executive branch, replacing civil servants with political loyalists, rolling back climate regulation, and imposing more conservative positions on education, immigration, and social policy. Its ambition is not merely to influence but to structurally reengineer American governance.

Comparing the two reveals important similarities. Both initiatives arise from frustration within conservative ranks, demanding that governments lean harder into free markets, deregulation, and fiscal restraint. Both set out to pre-write the policy script, defining what conservative governance “should” look like. And both blur the line between advocacy and preparation, building networks of people and ideas ready to be deployed when political openings appear.

Yet the differences are just as telling. Project Ontario is provincial, modest, and reformist. It seeks to push an existing government rather than overturn governing structures. Project 2025 is national, well-funded, and radical in scope, proposing changes that critics argue threaten democratic safeguards. Ontario’s conservatives debate incrementalism versus ideology within the safe confines of provincial policy; the U.S. effort aims at wholesale transformation of federal power.

The rise of Project Ontario highlights the pressures facing conservative parties across democracies. Governing requires compromise, but ideological movements demand purity. Whether Project Ontario grows into a defining force or remains a niche critique will depend on how well it mobilizes supporters, attracts funding, and survives Ford’s dismissive pushback. What is clear is that this is only the opening chapter of a story likely to grow louder in Ontario’s political landscape.

Watchlist: What to Track Next
• Leadership: Will Project Ontario name formal leaders or remain a loose network of policy advocates?
• Funding: Who finances the initiative, and how transparent will it be about its backers?
• Government Response: Will Ford continue to dismiss them, or be forced to absorb parts of their agenda to maintain support on his right flank?
• Media Coverage: Do they gain traction in mainstream debate, or stay confined to policy circles?
• Public Reception: Will Ontarians respond positively to their calls for fiscal restraint, or view them as too ideological for provincial politics?