'They were just hell-bent': Mayor battling Ottawa over 'really left' housing mandate
Article content
'They were just hell-bent on putting forward this really left-principled version of what housing should be,' Drew says of the conditions imposed on cities under the $4-billion housing accelerator fund launched in 2023 by then federal Housing Minister Sean Fraser.
Article content
Article content
Unlike most other big cities in Canada, Windsor chose not to apply for the housing accelerator dollars — turning down the possibility of a $30-million cash infusion into the city's densification strategies.
Article content
Article content
City council didn't dare to accept the funds and later renege on the feds' conditions, Drew says: 'We basically walked away from $30 million because we refused to succumb, or be co-opted into something we felt was bad for the community.'
Article content
Then-Liberal MP for Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore, Irek Kusmierczyk (who lost the 2025 election by just four votes to Conservative MP Kathy Borrelli), implored Windsor's city council to reconsider, insisting the feds were only asking for 'gentle density.'
Article content
It's not so gentle, Drew counters, if you find yourself living next door to a new four-plex and you bought your house based on the community's single-family residential character.
Article content
Article content
'We did it in our way,' Drew explains in a recent conversation, 'because there's no one who knows their community better, no level of government that knows their community better,' than the local council. The 53-year-old lawyer-cum-mayor grew up in Windsor, and has served on the city's council for nearly two decades, 11 as mayor.
Article content
Article content
And when you look at Canada's Constitution, Drew points out, these issues are 'under the bailiwick of the provincial government … who delegate it to the municipalities.'
Article content
The city's locally generated housing strategies — intense densification along transit routes; blanket rezoning in new neighbourhoods to allow for greater density; repurposing several municipally owned properties for housing — were rejected by the fund's managers as 'not ambitious enough.'
Article content
'Ambition' was their favourite word, Drew grumbles: 'We weren't ambitious enough and they wanted to work with municipalities who had greater ambition.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. Wednesdays What's next in arts, life and pop culture. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this … why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' ___
National Observer
5 hours ago
- National Observer
A Canadian researcher was 'indispensible' to helping Trump dismantle climate action
A Canadian economist and conservative columnist who recently called Prime Minister Mark Carney a "climate zealot" played a critical role in the Trump administration's push to eradicate US climate rules. Ross McKitrick, an associate professor at the University of Guelph and a senior fellow at libertarian thinktank the Fraser Institute, was one of five co-authors recruited by US Energy Secretary Christ Wright to author a 150-page US Department of Energy (DOE) report that undermined the US government's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. He was "indispensible" to the project, wrote co-author and climate denier Roy Spencer in his blog. The report argues "CO2-induced warming appears to be less economically damaging than commonly believed," and "mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial." The report was published last week as part of the Trump administration's proposal to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's Endangerment Finding — the legal mechanism underpinning most US climate legislation. Eliminating the finding, a longstanding goal of climate deniers, lets the government undermine standards that limit emissions, including from oil and gas operations, power plants and landfills. There is a widespread scientific consensus that human activity, mostly burning fossil fuels, is the main driver of climate change. That finding was backed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the European Climate Risk Assessment, and the US's Fifth National Climate Risk Assessment, published during the Biden era. Bill McKibben, the prominent climate scientist, journalist, climate advocate and co-founder of told Canada's National Observer McKitrick's involvement is a rare example of climate denial flowing from Canada to the US. "I suppose it's proof that once in a while the damage goes the other way across the border," he said. If the Trump administration successfully eradicates all US climate measures, the country is projected to emit an extra seven billion tons of greenhouse gases between now and 2030 — like adding an additional 10 Canadas to the world's emissions. A Canadian economist and conservative columnist who recently called Prime Minister Mark Carney a "climate zealot" played a critical role in the Trump administration's push to eradicate US climate rules. McKitrick has been downplaying the impacts of climate change and bolstering the fossil fuel industry for decades. As far back as 2000, he joined a briefing by the so-called "Cooler Heads Coalition," a group with close ties to the oil industry, to criticize the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. "The inclusion of Ross McKitrick, whose work is widely debunked and who isn't even American, tells you just how hard it is to find researchers who will question the overwhelming scientific consensus on carbon dioxide emissions and climate change," said Simon Donner, a climate scientist at the University of British Columbia and a lead author on the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. As the conversation continued around climate change, McKitrick continued to publicly criticize climate science and renewable energy throughout the 2000s and 2010s through his work writing reports for the Fraser Institute and other thinktanks, in news media and as a public speaker. In 2020 he published an op-ed for Troy Media that claims we must ' fight climate extremists before they upend society" and slammed Canada's then-proposed plastic pollution rules for imposing " costs and inconvenience … while doing nothing to fix the [pollution] problem." He remains a prominent voice against climate action, contributing climate-skeptical columns to the Financial Post, the National Post and the oil and gas outlet Energy Now. He also continues to write for conservative thinktanks, including a 2025 report for the Fraser Institute that concludes achieving Canada's net zero goals isn't worth the economic and social cost. A spokesperson for the US DOE said in an emailed statement that McKitrick and his co-authors, the prominent climate contrarians John Christy, Judith Curry, Steve Koonin and Roy Spencer, "represent diverse viewpoints and political backgrounds." Wright, the US energy secretary, wrote in the report's preface that "media coverage often distorts the science" on climate, pushing "many people [to] walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete. To provide clarity and balance, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to critically review the current state of climate science. "I've reviewed the report carefully, and I believe it faithfully represents the state of climate science today. Still, many readers may be surprised by its conclusions — which differ in important ways from the mainstream narrative," Wright, a former oil and gas executive, continued. In February, Wright described the global effort against climate change as "sinister" and a "tool used to grow government power [and], top-down control, and shrink human freedom' while speaking at Jordan Peterson's Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference. A few weeks later, he attacked Biden-era climate measures as a "quasi-religious' agenda 'that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens.' Climate experts have slammed the new DOE report. Ben Sanderson, senior researcher on climate mitigation at the Centre for International Climate Research (CICERO) in Oslo, dismantled the paper in a thread on Bluesky. The "tiny" list of authors and lack of external peer-review undermines the report's credibility, he wrote. (Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change usually contain contributions from hundreds of authors.) McKitrick and his co-authors presented "minority contrarian viewpoints" by "isolating specific talking points and presenting them as a comprehensive assessment. "Each chapter follows the same pattern. Establish a contrarian position, cherry-pick evidence to support that position, then claim that this position is under-represented in climate literature and the IPCC in particular. Include a bunch of references, most of which don't support the central argument," he wrote. In a Tuesday post on X, McKitrick claimed that he and his co-authors weren't involved in designing the government's push to repeal the Endangerment Finding and "only knew what was in the news." However, the post links to blog posts by his co-authors Curry and Spencer where they address the key policy head-on: Spencer wrote that the group"suspected the Endangerment Finding would be the topic of greatest interest" to the Trump administration when they were commissioned to write the report. Curry wrote that "the looming US policy issue is the EPA Endangerment Finding" and that she hopes the report will break "Breaking the link between energy policy and human-caused climate change".
CBC
6 hours ago
- CBC
Trump didn't chicken out. So what's Canada's next move?
Social Sharing Canada has now learned that the derisive acronym TACO — often slapped on U.S. President Donald Trump — is inaccurate and needs to be tweaked to something more like "Trump (Almost) Always Chickens Out." Despite putting decidedly lower tariffs than he'd threatened on dozens of countries around the globe and giving Mexico a 90-day reprieve from his threat to raise its tariff rate, Trump singled out Canada for an increase. While there's no way that Canada can characterize what happened as a win, there's plenty of evidence that it's not a reason for Prime Minister Mark Carney's government to panic and do something that jeopardizes what really matters for the Canadian economy: tariff-free access to the U.S. for the vast majority of exports. The key evidence backing this perspective comes in the economic number-crunching showing the actual impact of Trump's tariffs on the whole of Canada's exports to the U.S, what's called the effective tariff rate. Think of it as an average, weighted by the value of Canadian goods going across the border. Different economists have slightly different estimates, but even with the increase Trump announced Thursday night, there's consensus the effective tariff rate for Canada is down in the single digits, noticeably lower than the rate for any other major trading partner. That's because despite Trump's bluster, he's allowing the vast majority of Canada's exports into the country with zero tariff under the terms of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). WATCH | Canada's talks with Trump administration will continue, says minister of US trade: 'The doors aren't closed' LeBlanc says on Canada-U.S. trade deal 3 hours ago Dominic LeBlanc, the minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade, tells CBC News that despite an overnight hike in tariffs on some Canadian goods by U.S. President Donald Trump, Ottawa is still negotiating with Washington and that LeBlanc expects talks to continue next week. LeBlanc was speaking outside the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C. Experts and business leaders say Canada's trade negotiators and federal government need to be laser focused on maintaining that tariff-free access through CUSMA, especially since the deal is soon up for review. Goldy Hyder, president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada, says a bigger issue than Trump's incremental increase of the tariffs is the way Canada is struggling to "find a way forward" in its negotiations with the U.S. 'The conversation that we should be having' "I am hoping this is an opportunity to reassess and to some extent reset where we are and where we need to get to for the longer haul," Hyder told CBC's Katie Simpson in an interview Friday. While Hyder says he has empathy for Carney's government as it tries to navigate the uncharted waters of dealing with Trump 2.0 on trade, he's questioning whether its negotiating strategy has been aimed at the correct target. Canada must assess what it needs to do "to get into the conversation that we should be having, which is first and foremost: how are we going to review and renew the USMCA?" Hyder said, using the U.S. government's preferred acronym for the trade deal. The text of CUSMA calls for a formal review starting in July 2026, but consultations between the three countries are expected to begin this fall. As Trump levies blanket tariffs on nearly every other major trading partner, observers are increasingly pointing to the big tariff exemptions Canada is getting from CUSMA as a major competitive advantage. That creates a rather hefty source of motivation for the Carney government to make solidifying CUSMA the long-term goal of its talks with the Trump administration. The eternal question: Trump's real motivation for the tariffs On the other side of the border, there's a view that a significant driving force behind Trump's tariff tactics with Canada is gaining leverage in those CUSMA renewal talks. Although Department of Justice lawyers have been arguing in court that stopping the flow of fentanyl from Canada — as minimal as it is — justifies the tariffs, trade policy expert Inu Manak of the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., says she believes there's no way that's really what's motivating Trump. "I do think a lot of this has to do with some sort of renegotiation of parts of the CUSMA deal that the Trump administration is not happy with," Manak told CBC News Network on Friday. Although Trump hit Canada with a tariff increase, Manak isn't criticizing Canada's negotiating tactics. "There's no really good way to go about doing this," she said. "We've seen variation in approaches and no matter what, everyone seems to be getting hit with tariffs." WATCH | Breaking down the winners and loser in Trump's tariff gambit: Win, lose or tariff? Playing Trump's trade deal game 20 hours ago CUSMA and its tariff-free access must remain the focus for Canada, says John Manley, a former Liberal deputy prime minister, now chair of chair of Jefferies Securities, a global investment banking firm. "The big game is the 93 per cent of Canadian goods that cross the border currently tariff-free under USMCA," Manley told CBC News. "That is what we need to protect." To retaliate or not? Even if the CUSMA renegotiation is what matters most in the long term for Canada, the Carney government also has to think about what its immediate next steps should be. Perhaps the most immediate question along those lines for Ottawa is whether to retaliate or not. Brian Clow, who served as former prime minister Justin Trudeau's deputy chief of staff and led his "war room" on Canada-U.S. trade relations, describes himself as a fan of retaliation, but is not advocating for Carney to fire back at Trump in this instance. "I do think [Carney and his team] need to stop and consider whether to further retaliate right now, given Canada is standing on its own, and the rest of the world is not standing with us," Clow said Friday in an interview with CBC News. WATCH | Should Carney hit back? Here's what a former PMO insider thinks: Canada is the only country in the world to be hit immediately by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs. Brian Clow, former deputy chief of staff for Justin Trudeau, says part of the reason Canada is being singled out is because it was one of only two countries to stand up to Trump — and 'the world made a mistake' by not retaliating. Carney's government also needs to think about what it can do about the tariffs that are actually having the biggest impact on Canada right now: the sectoral tariffs of 50 per cent on steel and aluminum and 25 per cent on the non-U.S. content of assembled automobiles. "Maybe there's one more step towards the American ask that we can take — that we can live with — that can close this deal," Clow said. The signals from Carney's team suggest the plan is to keep on keeping on. Dominic LeBlanc, the minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade, said Friday that he and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Trump's point man on tariffs, agreed to speak by phone next week and arrange for a meeting later in August. "We'll continue to talk to the Americans," LeBlanc told reporters in Washington. "The United States will continue to be our neighbour, continue to be our most important economic and security partner." Both LeBlanc in his scrum and Carney in his statement acknowledged the need for the government to help the steel, aluminum and auto sectors. Getting carve-outs or reductions of those tariffs will no doubt be an objective as the talks with Team Trump progress.
