Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - January 14, 2025, Winnipeg, Manitoba THINK TANK COMMENT EDITOR: RUSSELL WANGERSKY 204-697-7269 ● RUSSELL.WANGERSKY@WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 TUESDAY JANUARY 14, 2025 Ideas, Issues, Insights JUSTIN TANG / CANADIAN PRESS FILES Federal Housing Minister Nathaniel Erskine-Smith says increasing the supply of social housing is a priority. A housing opportunity for Manitoba D ESPITE the recent prorogation of Parlia- ment, the work of government continues. Newly appointed federal ministers know they have limited time to leave their mark. There will be an urgency to get budgeted funding out the door before a new Liberal leader is chosen and an election is called. Housing and Infrastructure Minister Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said that he accepted the call to cabinet because he wants to “make the biggest difference that I can.” He recognizes the housing crisis is closely linked to rising homelessness and a host of other societal issues. He describes Canada’s housing crisis as one of Canada’s most pressing issues. In a Jan. 12 CBC interview with Rosemary Bar- ton, Erskine-Smith noted a few priorities he will pursue over the next few months. One of those priorities is to increase the supply of social hous- ing. This creates a significant opportunity for the Manitoba government but it will require quick action and collaboration with non-profit housing providers and the City of Winnipeg. In 2017, the Trudeau government announced the first-ever National Housing Strategy (NHS). The strategy was to focus on “improving housing outcomes for those in greatest need.” While there has been a significant increase in rental housing built through various NHS programs since that time, very little has gone to the creation of hous- ing for those in greatest need. Housing research- ers have determined that less than three per cent of the rental units produced by the NHS’s largest program are affordable to low-income households. The increase in the number of people who are homeless or precariously housed suggests the strategy has not succeeded. Social housing advocates are telling Er- skine-Smith that if he wants to ensure his government creates housing for those in greatest need, he should do a few things. One of those is to reallocate existing housing funds to the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI). The federal government created the RHI during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is the only social-housing-focused federal pro- gram, but it is the smallest of the NHS programs. Moving funding to the RHI from other programs would redirect already committed federal fund- ing to where it is needed most. The Manitoba government could access these funds to meet its social housing objectives. But it would need to act quickly to develop a viable cost-shared social housing plan the federal government will support. Erskine-Smith’s interest in social housing aligns with what housing advocates have been long calling for here in Manitoba — expanded in- vestments in social housing, which is a key social determinant of health. In a CBC interview re- sponding to the tragic death of Chad Christopher Giffin, a patient who died after waiting upwards of eight hours at Winnipeg’s Health Sciences Centre’s emergency department, Premier Wab Kinew noted the continued urgency to improve the health-care system. He also rightly noted that reducing the pressures facing the health-care system requires attending to the social determi- nants of health. Housing has long been associated with health — housing and health disparities are inextricably linked. Social housing advocates applaud Manitoba’s current NDP government for making a commit- ment to invest in the expansion and maintenance of social housing (with supports) but with a feder- al election looming and expectations that Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives will replace the Liberal government, it is going to find itself in a predic- ament. The scale of social housing needed will require federal investment. Poilievre has made clear that he has no intention in investing public funds in social housing. A Poilievre government will rely solely on the private sector. That has been the dominant approach taken for over 30 years and it hasn’t worked. With a new federal minister motivated to move quickly on social housing, there is a time-sensi- tive opportunity for Manitoba. Access to federal housing funds is still possible. Both the federal and provincial government have much to gain from taking action on social housing. The federal government wants to leave a legacy that shows its National Housing Strat- egy made an impact on the lives of those it was intended to help. Investing in social housing and supports will ease pressure on the health-care system. It will provide the foundation needed to improve education outcomes, access to employ- ment, keeping kids out of the care of the child welfare system and other NDP government priorities. But the provincial government needs the federal government’s help to expand social housing at the scale required to meet the need in Manitoba. The wheels of government typically move slow- ly. That will need to change at this unique moment in time if the Manitoba government is going to seize an opportunity before it is too late. Shauna MacKinnon is a professor and chair, University of Winnipeg urban and inner-city studies and a member of the Right to Housing Coalition. Remembering the Kennedy-Diefenbaker dispute WHY should anyone be surprised? Incoming U.S. president Donald Trump says it was his actions that actually precipitated the political demise of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Right… Not surprisingly, his right-hand man — Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and X — is not far behind him in taking some credit for Trudeau’s even- tual departure. It is worth recalling that Musk’s endorsement may have boosted the electoral fortunes of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party before the country’s February 2025 national elections. I’m confident, though, that neither Musk’s nor Trump’s social media interventions had anything to do with Trudeau’s resignation. But in another attempt to insinuate himself into domestic Cana- dian politics, Musk has been far more effusive re- cently in his praise of Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre. It is worth remembering that it wouldn’t be the first time that a U.S. president sought to put his fingers on the federal electoral scale in Canada. Indeed, John F. Kennedy sought to do just that against then-prime minister John Diefenbaker, whom he intensely disliked. Since 1961, the Kennedy Administration had been strongly urging the Diefenbaker govern- ment to accept the nuclear warheads for its Bomarc-B surface-to-air missiles in Canada. Diefenbaker had been trying every diplomatic trick in the book to avoid giving the Americans a definitive answer on the warheads issue. In his heart-of-hearts, he basically sided with the Cana- dian people and opposed the acceptance of U.S. nuclear warheads. With U.S. pressure and bilateral controver- sy growing, Diefenbaker rose in the House of Commons in early January 1963 and declared that there was no pressing need for Canada to accept the nuclear-armed Bomarcs. To no one’s surprise, the Kennedy White House and the U.S. State Department were stunned and outraged, and they both felt that they had been badly misled by Diefenbaker’s government. The consensus thinking in Washington had also become hardened around the notion that Diefenbaker’s government had not been open to resolving serious defence-related issues through normal diplomatic channels. While the Americans were certainly cognizant of inciting harmful anti-American sentiments in Canada, they were convinced that they could no longer look the other way when it came to Diefenbaker’s repeated intransigence. His distortion of the official U.S. record in his speech to Canada’s Parliament terribly upset the diplomatic apple cart. And his public disclosure of the secret negotiations with the U.S. over the war- heads was just too much for the American side. After a few days of debating various options, and knowing that they had to respond forcefully, U.S. officials decided on disseminating a State Department press release on Jan. 30, 1963. But it wasn’t just any dry, boiler-plate press release from the U.S. government. It basically refuted what Diefenbaker had said in the House, sought to set the bilateral record straight and, for all intents and purposes, amounted to calling Diefenbaker a bold-faced liar. Though Kennedy himself never held the pen when it came to draft- ing the official U.S. statement, he was aware of its general contents and thrust. Needless to say, Diefenbaker was livid — as was the Canadian public at the time — and he accused the Americans of blatant interference in Canada’s internal affairs. But he was always con- scious of U.S. efforts to treat Canada as a pawn or stooge, to undermine Canadian sovereignty and autonomy, and to turn every U.S. entreaty into a personal slight. Within a few days, and reminiscent of what is happening today in Canada, all hell broke loose in Ottawa. However, there is no real sense from the extant literature (though there are differ- ing academic views on this point) that the State Department, the Kennedy White House or even U.S. Embassy officials in Canada had planned on deliberately destabilizing the Diefenbaker government via a non-confidence vote. Nor could they have predicted that three of Diefenbaker’s top cabinet ministers, including Doug Harkness, minister of defence, would resign out of exas- peration with the prime minister’s characteristic indecisiveness. Some senior U.S. officials later boasted that it was the first time that Washington had actually toppled a foreign government with a simple press release. Others maintained that they had absolute- ly no idea what sort of a “bomb” they had detonat- ed in official Ottawa. There were real concerns in Washington, which Kennedy himself shared, that Diefenbaker would try to use American interference to boost his re-election campaign in the spring of 1963. But Diefenbaker wisely thought better of it. In the end, he lost the 1963 federal election to Lester Pearson — though Pearson could only secure a minority government. But as Pearson would later confirm to Kennedy, it was U.S. efforts to interfere in Canadian politics that actu- ally cost him a parliamentary majority. So Trump should learn from the past and re- member that the most calculated political attacks or endorsements can often backfire. Indeed, Poil- ievre can ill-afford to be perceived by Canadian voters as kowtowing — or selling out Canadian interests — to Trump and his trusty sidekick. Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown. Gratitude for Joe Biden ON New Year’s Eve, I attended a wedding, a jubilant mix of friends and family. In the mix was the bride’s uncle — President Joseph R. Biden Jr. I was eager to speak to him before we sat down for dinner. I needed to say thank you. My thank you to Biden was personal. This straight, white, Irish Catholic man did historic things as vice-president and then as president to make this African American and gay married man feel more a part of the American story. Biden isn’t perfect. Any critic could trawl his 50 years in public life to find comments and votes that reflected the popular sen- timents of the time but might shock con- sciences today. As the nation evolved, so did he. For instance, Biden was among the 85 sen- ators who voted in 1996 to pass the Defence of Marriage Act that prohibited marriage for same-sex couples. Fast-forward to 2012. Then-president Barack Obama came out in favour of same-sex marriage — but three days after Biden, his vice-president, made the same declaration on Meet the Press. Biden caught hell inside the White House for appearing to push the president. It made him a hero to millions outside the White House. When Biden became president, he con- tinued weaving LGBTTQ+ Americans into their nation’s fabric. He signed the Respect for Marriage Act requiring recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages such as mine. He gave us the first out gay man con- firmed to the cabinet, the first out lesbian to serve as press secretary and the first out transgender person confirmed to a position by the Senate. Were it not for the Biden presidency, we wouldn’t have had Vice-President Kamala Harris, the first Black woman elected to the position. We wouldn’t have Justice Ketan- ji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. And we wouldn’t have more Black women appointed to the circuit courts than by all of Biden’s predecessors combined. My admiration for Biden is also rooted in the character of a man whose lifetime of public service is intertwined with a lifetime of public pain. In 2017, we were seated across from each other on a stage in Schenectady, N.Y., discussing Promise Me, Dad, his moving memoir about his son Beau’s fight against brain cancer. As he spoke of Beau, Biden physically folded into himself. Head bowed. Eyes downcast. Shoulders slumped. But as soon as the conversation turned to politics, Biden brightened. He sat up straight. He looked me in the eyes. He held forth like a man ready for the game. Two years later, he was a candidate again. During an interview in South Carolina in 2019, I asked him how he could break the narrative that he was too old to run. “Well, I can only break out of it when I win,” he told me. Classic response from a man determined to defy the low expecta- tions that hounded him his entire political life. And defy them he did. Biden went on to win the Democratic nom- ination and the White House in 2020. Once in office, Biden kept defying the odds by racking up legislative victories that seemed impossible and helping stave off a presumed red wave in 2022. After interviews with Biden in 2022 and 2024, I felt I fully under- stood what fuelled him. He loves the job because of the power it gives him to solve problems — the more intractable the better. But low expectations caught up with Biden last year in Atlanta. His painful perfor- mance on the debate stage gave Democratic Party detractors what they needed to drum him out of his race for re-election. The latest AP-NORC poll found Biden with a lower approval rating as he leaves than his predecessor (and successor) had in 2020, I’m confident history will judge him extreme- ly favourably. Yes, he met failures. Biden wasn’t able to keep some of his campaign promises, such as getting the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act passed. Plus, he resisted ending the Senate filibuster, which would have helped get the legislation passed. Given what we know now, he should have gotten out of the race earlier. Still, Biden is a good man who brought his entire imperfect self to the world’s most un- forgiving job, and his faith in the American people was unshakable. “We’re the United States of America,” Biden says at the end of almost every speech. “There’s nothing beyond our capacity if we set our mind to it and we do it together.” I swell with pride every time I hear him say it, for I know that I am part of the “our” in his vision. He has shown me by his ac- tions. And for that I had to say thank you. — The Washington Post JONATHAN CAPEHART PETER MCKENNA SHAUNA MACKINNON ;