Will there be a national unity crisis if Conservatives lose?
Connor, a viewer, asked us: Do you think there is a risk of a national unity crisis by way of Alberta should the Conservatives not win the election? Catherine Cullen, host of CBC's political podcast The House, says that while it's important to listen to frustrations around energy policies, so far the data doesn't show enough support to separate.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
32 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Why Toronto's streets keep ending up as a battleground — and what the fight should really be about
The big number 25 % the percentage of customers that business owners believed drove to access their stores along Bloor Street, according to a 2017 study. The actual number was less than 10 per cent. Hey, did you hear the story about the group fighting a proposed change to a Toronto street? They're really worked up about it, claiming that the proposal from Toronto city hall will devastate small businesses, bring traffic to a standstill, and maybe even usher in a 'Mad Max'-style apocalypse. 'Wait, which street?' you might be wondering. And the answer is, well, a whole lot of them. I've seen so darn many of these street fights in my decade-plus covering Toronto city hall, with the civic equivalent of knock-down drag-out brawls occurring again and again. And the street fighters just keep coming. Last week, an advocacy group dubbed the Downtown Concerned Citizens Association held a press conference to state its opposition to a bike lane extension planned for the Esplanade, between Yonge and Market Streets. 'Bike lanes restrict road space,' the group declared, according to a report by the CBC. 'Bike lanes have turned streets into parking lots, with residents unable to shop, get their kids to events, and seriously impact emergency services and Wheel-Trans.' Their opposition follows a similar — and at least partly AI-aided — uproar over city hall's plans to install transit-priority lanes on Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street. And a local tiff over a bit of bike infrastructure on North York's Marlee Avenue. And the ongoing fight over keeping bike lanes on Bloor Street, Yonge Street and University Avenue, where even Premier Doug Ford got involved. Go back further and there are more examples. Remember the street fighters who claimed prioritizing the King streetcar would mark the end of King West? Or the 'citizen's revolt' over bike lanes on Woodbine Avenue? Or the ' Save Our St. Clair' group that sued to try to stop the construction of the streetcar right-of-way on St. Clair? Heck, you can even go back to the '90s, when opposition groups along Spadina Avenue warned that removing the angled on-street parking to make way for dedicated streetcar lanes would somehow destroy the vibrancy of the street. They really loved those angled parking spaces. The frustrating thing isn't just the sheer repetition of the street fight stories, but also that the pile of accumulated data from these same fights never seems to change anything. Because when you do look at the record, the record is clear: where these kinds of projects have been allowed to go forward, and where traffic has been given enough time to adjust to the new street layouts, the result has been basically fine. The uproar and opposition inevitably fade away. People get used to the new bike lanes or the new transit lanes. The apocalyptic warnings are forgotten about. The apocalypse never arrives. At this point, with so many fights waged — not just in Toronto, but in other cities, too — you'd think there'd be at least a handful of examples where the dire warnings proved prophetic. Where bike lanes, bus lanes and the removal of some on-street parking led directly to boarded-up storefronts and permanently gridlocked traffic. But I've struggled to find real case studies that document that kind of catastrophic failure in any city anywhere in the world. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW The repeated claim that transit lanes and bus lanes will destroy businesses deserves a special call-out because it seems to be based on a perception problem. The Centre for Active Transportation, for example, found via a 2017 study that Bloor Street retailers believed that about 25 per cent of their customers arrived via car. The actual percentage? Less than 10 per cent. Part of the issue might be that merchants were about five times more likely to drive to work than their customers. They drive, so they assume their customers do too. Meanwhile, data suggests the transit priority project on King Street and the bike lanes on Bloor Street actually led to increased retail spending. Go figure. None of this should be read as a suggestion that Toronto city hall and its plans are always perfectly on point. The transportation department tends to make change harder than it has to be. On Bloor West, for example, opposition to the bike lanes was likely made more intense by the baffling decision to install the lanes without making adjustments to signal timing at intersections. And the department is generally still not fast enough at addressing clear bottlenecks that could be eased with minor tweaks. Toronto's street fighters would be better served by focusing their energy on getting city hall to address those kinds of specific issues more quickly and efficiently, rather than always trying to land a knockout blow against any kind of change. When your punches are this weak, it's probably time to stop throwing hands.
National Post
11 hours ago
- National Post
Kelly McParland: Poilievre needs to earn an extension as leader
Canada's federal Conservatives are stuck with a dilemma as they consider whether to do anything different in the next two years than they did in the last two. Article content At the centre of the dilemma are a host of riddles. As in, did they actually lose the last election? Sure, they didn't win, but did they lose lose? Like, did Canadians actually reject them, or did something else happen that got in the way of the victory they anticipated? Article content Article content Article content If they did lose, what do they do about it? And if they didn't lose lose, what do they do about that? Article content Article content Depending on the answers to those questions is another of equal weight: do they head into the future with the same team of decision-makers who didn't quite win if they maybe didn't lose? And how do you answer that question when you don't know what the future holds, given that one complaint against the current leader is that he didn't respond effectively enough when the playing field changed? Article content As far as Pierre Poilievre is concerned, there's nothing to decide. 'We had the biggest vote count in our party's history, the biggest increase in our party's history, the biggest vote share since 1988 and we're going to continue to work to get over the finish line,' he replied when asked. That same argument is on offer from other Conservatives keen on moving past the vote that left them once again in second place. Article content The 'nothing to see here' case goes like this: In any previous election dating back 40 years the Tory results would have put them in power, likely with a majority. The fact this one didn't was the result of unprecedented exterior factors, specifically, the timing of Justin Trudeau's departure and the coinciding emergence of a U.S. president even his most fervent detractors didn't foresee as being quite this nuts. Alarmed and unnerved, voters opted for continuity and incumbency over the very real practical policies they'd been firmly embracing until then. Article content It's not a bad argument, but also not entirely convincing. In the Liberal bastion of greater Toronto, it sounds a lot like the local NHL team's annual excuses for once again failing to deliver the goods. 'Hey, at least we did better than our last collapse,' doesn't quite cut it. Article content Article content To its credit, the conservative universe isn't ready to simply roll over and accept the excuses. In this the party shows itself once again to be more independent-minded than the rival Liberals, who — after refusing to give themselves the power to oust Justin Trudeau, and living to regret the fact — made the same decision over his replacement. A majority of the caucus voted not to accept the rules of the Reform Act, meaning Prime Minister Mark Carney knows he can rule as he sees fit, safe in the knowledge the minions can't get rid of him. Would any other party in the democratic world vote to remain minions? Article content Conservatives not only adopted the Reform rules, but are discussing whether Poilievre should face a leadership review. A decision could be made as early as this month, with a review to take place next spring. It's possible they'll reject the option, but it would be a mistake. The world a year from now may look a lot different than it does today. Given the level of international uncertainty and the daily madhouse in Washington, it would be a shock if it didn't. Locking themselves into a recently-defeated leader when circumstances could easily demand an entirely different set of calculations would not be a show of confidence but an act of denial.
Canada Standard
15 hours ago
- Canada Standard
Liberals Table Bill to Speed Up Approvals for Major 'National Interest' Projects
Prime Minister Mark Carney's government introduced legislation Friday that would grant it new powers to quickly push forward major projects the federal cabinet deems to be in the national interest. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc tabled a bill in the House of Commons that would give Ottawa the authority to draw up a list of large projects it wants to prioritize and to expedite their federal approval, The Canadian Press reports. Carney said it has become too hard to build new projects in Canada and vowed that this legislation will change that. "We're in an economic crisis," Carney told a news conference on Parliament Hill on Friday. "We're still facing intensifying, unjustified tariffs from our largest trading partner and the best way to respond to that is to respond at home, build strength at home." Bill C-5, the "free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act," is twinned legislation meant to break down internal trade barriers and cut red tape for major projects. The bill was a marquee election promise by Carney, who campaigned on a pledge to make the country an "energy superpower" and build up a more resilient economy in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's global trade war. The prime minister said he will do everything possible to get the legislation passed this summer and did not rule out having Parliament sit longer. The House is only scheduled to sit for another two weeks and the Liberals are governing with a precarious minority, forcing them to seek the support of MPs from other parties to advance their agenda. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre described the new bill as a small step in the right direction. He also said it amounts to an admission by the Liberals that their laws have inhibited building and urged the government to take much bolder action. "We do not need baby steps. We need breakthroughs," he said. Poilievre said he wants the government to repeal the oil tanker ban on B.C.'s northern coast, terminate the oil and gas sector's emissions cap and scrap the Impact Assessment Act that sets out a process for environmental reviews. He said he will consult with his caucus about how to approach the bill in Parliament but added that Conservatives would "vote in favour of accelerating even one project." Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEO Lisa Baiton said she is "encouraged by the federal government's flexibility and efforts to work with the provinces to accelerate the approval process for major projects." But environmental groups warned the new process could upend efforts to fight climate change. Jessica Clogg, executive director of West Coast Environmental Law, said that past experience shows "rushed approvals without assessment of risks are a recipe for conflict, legal challenges and future environmental disasters." Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada said the government should not fast track new fossil-fuel projects, as Carney has suggested. "To even consider designating oil and gas expansion projects as in the national interest is a slap in the face to not just the next generation, but every Canadian struggling right now to deal with climate change-fueled wildfires," he said. The legislation would create a new federal office to take the lead on streamlining approvals for major projects and task the intergovernmental affairs minister with overseeing the final permitting decision. The government said the goal of the bill is to send a clear signal to businesses and quickly build up investor confidence. Carney said the current approval process forces projects to undergo multiple reviews and assessments one after another, rather than at the same time. "That process is arduous," he said. "It takes too long and it's holding our country back." "For too long, when federal agencies examined a project, their immediate question has been, 'Why?' With this new bill, we will ask ourselves, 'How?'" The bill sets out five criteria to evaluate whether a project is in the national interest. They include the project's likelihood of success, whether it would strengthen the country's resiliency and advance the interests of Indigenous peoples, and whether it would contribute to economic growth in an environmentally responsible way. The new federal review office will work toward a goal of approving projects within two years. That's a political promise rather than a hard-and-fast rule; the legislation does not mention timelines. While the bill would give the government broad power to skirt environmental laws to push projects forward, one expert said it remains to be seen how Ottawa will use it. "This is the kind of consolidation that you sometimes see in times of national emergency. We see it in wartime, we saw it in COVID to some extent. That consolidation can let you move more quickly, which can be a good thing, but it can also be a risky thing," said Stewart Elgie, the Jarislowsky chair in clean economy at the University of Ottawa. He warned that trying to "shortcut environmental interests" does not help expedite projects. "The Harper government never got a major pipeline built, and it's because they gave short shrift to environment and Indigenous concerns. It ended up with blockades and litigation that ultimately slowed down the projects," Elgie said. Carney said the legislation requires meaningful consultation with Indigenous Peoples consistent with the Constitution and the Crown's duty to consult. The federal review office will also include an Indigenous Advisory Council with First Nation, Inuit and Metis representation. The legislation comes with a sunset clause that forces a review of the law after five years. Carney met with the premiers earlier in the week in Saskatoon, where they privately discussed various projects the premiers want to see quickly launched - including pipelines, trade corridors and mining projects. The new legislation does not touch on any provincial approvals that might be needed to allow a project to go ahead. - With files from Sarah Ritchie and Nick Murray This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025. Source: The Energy Mix
