Another seat flips
The Liberals have won one more seat after a recount in a Quebec riding. Coming up, with three more recounts expected, how much can things change for the Liberal Party, and will it all impact the dynamic when the House resumes?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
22 minutes ago
- CTV News
From bros to foes: How the unlikely Trump-Musk relationship imploded
Elon Musk, left, shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump at the finals for the NCAA wrestling championship, March 22, 2025, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke) WASHINGTON -- When Donald Trump met privately with White House officials on Wednesday, there was little to suggest that the U.S. president was close to a public break with Elon Musk, the billionaire businessman who helped him win a second term in office. Two White House officials familiar with the matter said Trump expressed confusion and frustration in the meeting about Musk's attacks on his sweeping tax and spending bill. But he held back, the officials said, because he wanted to preserve Musk's political and financial support ahead of the midterm elections. By Thursday afternoon, Trump's mood had shifted. He had not spoken to Musk since the attacks began and was fuming over what one White House aide described as a 'completely batshit' tirade by the Tesla CEO on X, his social media platform. Musk had blasted Trump's tax bill as fiscally reckless and a 'disgusting abomination.' He vowed to oppose any Republican lawmaker who supported it. The bill would fulfill many of Trump's priorities while adding, according to the Congressional Budget Office, US$2.4 trillion to the $36.2-trillion U.S. public debt. Privately, Trump had called Musk volatile. On Thursday, he told his team, it was time to take the gloves off. Sitting next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters he was 'very disappointed' in his former adviser. Musk quickly hit back on social media, and the back-and-forth devolved from there. 'The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's government subsidies and contracts,' Trump posted on Truth Social, his social media site. Within minutes, Musk said it might be time to create a new political party and endorsed a post on X from Ian Miles Cheong, a prominent Musk supporter and right-wing activist, calling for Trump's impeachment. The Trump-Musk relationship at its height was unprecedented in Washington - a sitting president granting a billionaire tech CEO access and influence inside the White House and throughout his government. Musk spent nearly $300 million backing Trump's campaign and other Republicans last year. For months, Musk played both insider and disruptor - shaping policy conversations behind the scenes, amplifying Trump's agenda to millions online, and attacking the bureaucracy and federal spending through his self-styled Department of Government Efficiency. Just last week, Trump hosted a farewell for Musk and declared that 'Elon is really not leaving.' Now he had not only left but had turned into a top critic. Hours after Trump's Oval Office remarks, a third White House official expressed surprise at Musk's turnaround. It 'caught the president and the entire West Wing off guard,' she said. Musk did not respond to emails seeking comment about the downturn in relations. His super PAC spending group, America PAC, and spokeswoman Katie Miller did not respond to calls and texts requesting comment. In a statement, the White House called the breakup an 'unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted.' From allies to adversaries The Musk-Trump breakup sent Tesla's stock price plunging 14% on Thursday and drove uncertainty among Trump's allies in Congress, who are working to pass the monumental spending package that Democrats and a small number of vocal Republicans oppose. The breakup could reshape both men's futures. For Trump, losing Musk's backing threatens his growing influence among tech donors, social media audiences, and younger male voters — key groups that may now be harder to reach. It could also complicate fundraising ahead of next year's midterm elections. For Musk, the stakes are potentially even higher. The break risks intensified scrutiny of his business practices that could jeopardize government contracts and invite regulatory probes, which might threaten his companies' profits. Some of Musk's friends and associates were stunned by the fallout, with a number of them only recently expressing confidence that the partnership would endure, according to two other sources familiar with the dynamics. The split had been simmering for weeks, said the first two White House officials, but the breaking point was over personnel: Trump's decision to pull his nomination of Jared Isaacman, Musk's hand-picked candidate to be NASA administrator. 'He was not happy' about Isaacman, one of the White House officials said of Musk. Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur and close Musk ally, was seen as key to advancing Musk's vision for space exploration and commercial space ventures. After his nomination was scuttled, Isaacman posted on X: 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump, the Senate and all those who supported me.' The move was viewed within the administration as a direct snub to Musk, the two officials said, signaling a loss of political clout and deepening the rift between him and Trump's team. Before the Isaacman episode, top White House aides behind the scenes had already begun limiting Musk's influence — quietly walking back his authority over staffing and budget decisions. Trump himself reinforced that message in early March, telling his cabinet that department secretaries, not Musk, had the final say over agency operations. At the same time, Musk began to hint that his time in government would come to a close, while expressing frustration at times that he could not more aggressively cut spending. His threats and complaints about Trump's bill grew louder, but inside the White House, few believed they would seriously alter the course of the legislation — even as some worried about the fallout on the midterms from Musk's warnings to cut political spending, the first two White House officials said. Still, a fourth White House official dismissed the impact of Musk's words on the president's signature bill. 'We're very confident,' he said. 'No one has changed their minds.' But there was bafflement at the White House at how a relationship that only last week had been celebrated in the Oval Office had taken such a turn. Time will tell whether the rift can be repaired. A separate White House official said aides had scheduled a call between the two men on Friday. The official did not give a time for the call. By Nandita Bose and Jeff Mason, Reuters
Globe and Mail
22 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Canada can't solve its housing crisis without the provinces
Mike Moffatt is the founding director of the Missing Middle Initiative. Lisa Raitt is the co-chair of the Task Force for Housing and Climate and a former minister of transport, labour and natural resources. Canada is facing a housing crisis of historic proportions. To restore affordability, the country needs to build 5.8 million new homes by 2030. That means doubling the current rate of housing starts – an ambitious goal set by Prime Minister Mark Carney during the federal election campaign. It's a promise that will define his leadership, and one he'll be under intense pressure to deliver on. But no single order of government can solve Canada's housing crisis alone. While the federal government sets the tone and provides funding tools, the provinces hold many of the most important policy levers. If they don't act boldly, they risk becoming the bottleneck in Canada's efforts to boost supply, improve affordability and build housing that aligns with climate goals and can withstand extreme weather. The federal government has taken meaningful steps, including the promise to launch a Build Canada Homes entity and reinstate a 1970s-era tax incentive to spur rental apartment construction. It has also removed GST from new rental builds and made federal land available for housing. These are important changes – but their impact will be limited unless provinces get moving. In some provinces, we've seen positive momentum toward building density: British Columbia's reform allowing multiple units per lot and Ontario's recent relaxation of parking minimums are helpful steps. Inside the crisis facing Canada's dysfunctional housing market Tony Keller: Build, baby, build: Canada used to know how to do that Although both provinces have introduced reforms, these measures have been neutralized by skyrocketing development charges and sluggish approval timelines. As a result, housing starts in both provinces dropped more than 30 per cent in the first quarter of 2025 compared to the previous year. Municipalities, for their part, are largely 'creatures of the province,' and the decisions they make must be compliant with provincial regulations, such as Ontario's Development Charges Act. Some have begun to implement long-overdue zoning reforms. Some have acted independently, while others were encouraged to do so through the federal Housing Accelerator Fund. These initiatives show promise – but are frequently undermined by provincial inaction or contradictory policies. Fortunately, governments don't have to start from scratch. In 2024, the Task Force for Housing and Climate – composed of 15 housing and policy experts, including former Edmonton mayor Don Iveson and Mr. Carney (he's no longer a member) – published a comprehensive roadmap: Blueprint for More and Better Housing. It outlines more than 140 actionable recommendations across all levels of government to boost supply, deliver affordability, and build homes resilient to climate impacts. This year, the Task Force followed up with a report card grading federal and provincial governments on their performance. The federal government earned a B, praised for its recent initiatives but urged to improve transparency in programs like the Housing Accelerator and to launch a national hazard mapping initiative to prevent building in flood- and fire-prone areas. For the provinces, it's a different story. No province scored higher than a C+, with high fees, slow approvals and inconsistent reforms holding housing back. Among the provinces, Prince Edward Island earned among the highest marks for reforms that have boosted housing supply. However, the province still needs to do more to ensure new homes meet energy and climate-resilience standards. British Columbia introduced some of the country's boldest reforms, but its overall impact is undercut by rising municipal fees and glacial approval processes. Ontario, despite Premier Doug Ford's public opposition to fourplexes, has quietly legalized more density than most provinces and promised to launch a housing innovation fund. But volatile policymaking, persistent delays in the Greater Toronto Area, and the highest development charges in North America have led to low housing starts and, accordingly, a middling grade of C. If Canada is serious about tackling the housing crisis, now is the time for leadership, especially at the provincial level. We already know what works. The policy solutions are well understood and widely supported. What's missing is the political will to implement them. The housing crisis is not just a federal problem, or a municipal one. It is a national challenge – and solving it requires co-ordination and commitment from all three levels of government. The provinces hold many of the keys to housing, and need to act soon to help unlock supply.
National Post
28 minutes ago
- National Post
Ivison: The future is nuclear but we need pipelines too
Article content This week, John Ivison discussed the Carney government's plans for nation-building projects with Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior advisor for the Business Council of Canada. Article content Ivison asked whether asking premiers to submit projects deemed to be in the national interest will mean we are at risk of pursuing white elephants that are not feasible or uneconomic. Article content Article content 'The tone has markedly improved from the last Liberal government, so there is some optimism,' she said. 'There is a sense that the federal government will be a partner in building things, where, for a long time, we thought they were blocking our ability to build things. So it's a great start but there's only so long that you can have a honeymoon period before things have to happen. We actually have to see some action. And we know that Liberal governments are very good at rhetoric and not so great at implementation.' Article content She said her concern is that projects are being submitted by governments and then projects deemed 'nation-building' are being selected by the federal government. Article content 'The direction it's going is a little concerning, in that they want to have a short list of nation-building projects and they will determine if it's nation building and use the public purse to fund them in cases where the private sector will not step up. Article content 'There may be a handful where that's justified. There's obviously a role for governments to build infrastructure. But the low-hanging fruit is obviously to improve our regulatory competitiveness. We have very restrictive, very burdensome regulatory processes. There are a lot of projects that proponents want to do on their own, without government help, if the regulation was better, if we had better tax competitiveness with our competitors. And so I will tolerate a handful of these nation building projects, if they make sense from a business side. But at the end of the day, we're going to need to see the regulations improved and streamlined.' Article content Exner-Pirot said that Mark Carney's goal of a two-year approval process is a 'great target' Article content '(But) we should walk before we run. For some of these things, three years also look pretty good. Two years is certainly feasible if we have good processes and good relations with Indigenous partners. The Conservatives were talking about a six months (approval process) and that just didn't seem feasible to me – that you would never be able to fulfill your duty to consult and accommodate in such a timeline. So two years is ambitious, but doable and we should reach for it.' Article content She pointed out that Canada has to be regulatory and tax competitive with jurisdictions like Texas. Article content 'We would like to bring some of that capital back home. But at the end of the day, investors are going to make those decisions based on the return that they get. Let's make sure that our tax system is competitive so that capital actually wants to choose Canada. One sector where Exner-Pirot is extremely bullish is nuclear power generation using small modular nuclear reactors. Article content This is the one area where I just think: 'Yes, this is a nation building project'. We should lead on SMRs. And there's so many strategic reasons for Canada. One is that we have the uranium source. (We are) the world's number two exporter and number two producer of uranium. We have phenomenal deposits in northern Saskatchewan and in Nunavut. We could dominate the supply chain and the technology. We are building the first SMR in the G7. It has taken some public money to get there. But being the first mover really does accord you some benefits as you try to sell these models in the future. So where can we go next? Nuclear really has the potential if you get the cost curve down. It's a baseload clean energy that needs very little land and very little material inputs. In 100 years, do I think we'll be doing mostly nuclear? Yes, I honestly do.' Article content On specific projects, Ivison asked if a bitumen pipeline should be a priority. Article content '(Alberta premier) Danielle Smith has said it, and my analysis suggests it's absolutely true: There is nothing that will change the economic growth, the GDP, the productivity per capita in this country as much as a bitumen pipeline. We finally added Trans Mountain about a year ago. That's at 90 per cent utilization right now in one year. Our producers filled it fast, so there's clearly demand. We're seeing most of that demand come from Asia, so there is strong demand in global markets for Canadian heavy oil. But it is concerning that we have added this pipeline and we're already running out of egress. So there is an urgency from the producers that we need to start thinking about the next pipeline. And I don't think we're going to get Northern Gateway in two years. If everything went well, probably four years. And that's why we have to start planning for (the next one) now,' she said. Article content Exner-Pirot said whichever pipeline plan comes forward will require the B.C. government to revisit its opposition to tanker traffic on the West Coast. Article content 'I'm finding this hard to understand because B.C. has actually done some constructive and progressive things on the economic development side since Trump was inaugurated. (Premier Dave) Eby has almost been the most vocal about wanting the elbows up. He said in February that if we don't sell Canadian oil and gas, they will just get it from places like Venezuela. I thought: 'Wow, this guy has had a light bulb moment'. To hear (his support for the tanker ban) two and a half months later is quite disappointing. Now a lot of this is federal jurisdiction, so while we want the feds to get out of the way, (it is different) on inter-provincial pipelines, because that is clearly federal jurisdiction. We know from Trans Mountain when B.C., if you recall, said: 'We will use every tool in the toolbox to stop this project'. And they did. But it wasn't their right. The feds can overturn the oil tanker ban. That's their jurisdiction. But what proponent really wants to step into a situation where a provincial government is going to use every tool in the toolbox to stop your project? It's obviously not bullish for investment to have this kind of political disagreement on the ground.' Article content Ivison asked if the idea of a 'grand bargain' between Alberta and Ottawa on decarbonizing bitumen before it is transported to the West Coast by pipeline is a viable option. Article content 'It is feasible. The industry itself has proposed carbon capture and also using some solvents to reduce emissions. In the last 11 years, they have actually reduced carbon intensity emissions per barrel by 30 per cent. So they are doing the work. A lot of the carbon comes from natural gas input to heat the bitumen. That's an expense. There's every reason why they would rather not have to pay that kind of money. Article content 'Right now, the oil sands, on a life cycle basis, is only about 1-3 per cent higher emissions than the global average barrel, the average crude. But if we did this carbon capture, if we did some of the solvent innovations that they're using, it would actually be below the global average on a life cycle basis. So there is a grand bargain to be had. The industry itself has been advocating it. We're very competitive on an economic basis. We want to be competitive on a carbon basis. Article content 'What Danielle Smith is saying is: 'Where's the money going to come from to spend probably $20 billion on these (carbon capture) technologies? If you know you're going to get another pipeline and you can increase your production and fill it with a million barrels a day, well, now there's more revenue coming in and there's a justification. (But) if all your profits have to be driven into carbon capture, you're just not going to get any investment. All of this is cost, none of this is profit and they still have to have a certain level of return from the investors or the investors will just take off.' Article content Moving east across Canada,, Exner-Pirot has been skeptical about Arctic ports being commercially viable. She noted that the feds and the province of Manitoba have spent more than half a billion dollars on the port of Churchill and it's still not attracting shippers and investors, while the Northwest Territories is trying to push the idea of an 'Arctic Security Corridor' that runs between Alberta and Gray's Bay in Nunavut, via Yellowknife. Both ports are impacted by a short shipping season because of sea ice. Article content 'It's a terrible idea for oil and a very bad idea for liquefied natural gas,' she said. 'You will never get a return on your investment. We do want northern development. We do want those regions to prosper at a local level. (But) this is not the thing that's going to grow our GDP. This is not the thing that's going to help Canada diversify its exports away. Article content 'A port in Churchill and a port in Gray's Bay can be useful for helping local mining development happen. That's important for jobs, for taxes, for royalties, for those communities' economic health. So there's a reason it's a public good to provide some basic infrastructure, basic transportation access for the people that live there. Article content Critical minerals are a very different thing from oil. You can mine, you can produce all year and stockpile it, and then in that short shipping season you can ship it out. It's not very expensive just to have it sitting there while the shipping season is closed.' Article content Exner-Pirot said the signs are positive that Canada will finally get its act together and overcome the barriers to economic development because the alternative is stagnation. Article content 'If we return to our complacency after what we've seen and what we've gone through, then God help this country. The conversation right now, again, is focusing on a few projects. I'll be tolerant of this, maybe for a handful of projects and for a handful of months. But (we must) improve our regulatory systems, especially at the federal level. That is where we need to see movement. You can't bring in new people at the rate we bring in new people, and you can't be dependent on China at the rate that we're dependent on China. That cannot keep going on,' she said. Article content
