One of the stories that has been floating around the past few days is that Toronto stands to lose up to $30 million in federal funding from the Housing Accelerator Fund because council did not approve city-wide zoning for sixplexes, which was a condition that they signed up for when they negotiated their deal for this money. And of course, this also comes with voices who claim that the federal government would be “using money as punishment” if they don’t give them all the money anyway, even though they have quite deliberately thumbed their noses at the very thing that they agreed to in order to get that money.

The established media narrative is that municipalities are *always* the victims who have no tools at their disposal.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-07-13T17:58:54.360Z

Unfortunately, we have a history of the federal government backing down when it comes to either giving money anyway when deals are broken, or by not recovering costs when they should. For example, the federal government was clawing back health transfers from New Brunswick for not funding abortion access at a clinic that was in an underserved part of the province, but when COVID hit, they released all of the clawed back money so that they didn’t look like the bad guys in ensuring that the province was living up to its obligations (or, for that matter, proving that they were sticking to their feminist principles, and using that money as leverage for the province to back down and fund the clinic). Another example is that provinces have deliberately underfunded their emergency management systems because they have been conditioned to know that the federal government will provide assistance from the Canadian Forces, and that provinces will get that assistance for free. The federal government has the authority to recover those costs from the provinces, but they never do because it would look like they’re somehow being mean to those provinces, when the provinces deliberately underfunded their own capacity.

If we want to reform things and start enforcing a system of accountability, that starts with making sure that provinces and municipalities live up to their agreements, or they don’t get transfer payments. But that requires a backbone and a willingness to actually hold them to account for those failures, and not being so timid that they refuse to actually say in clear terms that those provinces or municipalities didn’t live up to their agreements, so they would lose the funding/didn’t fund their own services because they thought they could get federal services for free, but they can’t, because there’s one taxpayer and they think they’re being clever. Nothing will change if someone doesn’t take a stand, and it’s time we start doing so.

Ukraine Dispatch

Trump says that America will resume sending Patriot missiles to Ukraine, so we’ll see how long it lasts this time.

Good reads:

• Anita Anand says the Indo-Pacific Strategy is taking on a more economic focus, but insists we’re not abandoning our values. (Aren’t we?)
• Half of complex dental plan requests under the federal programme are being rejected, ostensibly because of “growing pains.”
• Here’s a look at the destruction of PEPFAR, which has saved millions of lives, and how the evangelical community has shrugged after saying they cared about it.
• Pierre Poilievre now says he lost his riding because he was “too honest” about the need for job cuts in the civil service. (So that bit of introspection is going well).
• Here is a look at how Danielle Smith can be responsive to concerns…so long as you’re the right kind of person who can keep her in power.
• An emerald ash borer infestation was found in Vancouver after one of the beetles flew into an amateur entomologist who was able to alert authorities.
• Paul Wells talks to Minna Ålander from Chatham House about the recent happenings with NATO and how it impacts Canada.
• My weekend column wonders when Carney will actually start behaving like the old relationship with the US is over, instead of debasing himself for a trade deal.

Odds and ends:

New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I'm talking to @aleach.ca about Bill C-5 and the possibility of new pipelines given the changes in the energy market #cdnpoli

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2025-07-14T03:24:50.779Z

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.

By now there’s plenty of evidence showing why heat pumps are such a promising solution for getting buildings off fossil fuels. But most of that research has focused on single-family homes. Larger apartment buildings with steam or hot water heating systems — i.e. most of the apartment buildings in the Northeast — are more difficult and expensive to retrofit.

A new report from the nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, however, assesses a handful of new technologies designed to make that transition easier and finds they have the potential to significantly lower the cost of decarbonizing large buildings.

“Several new options make decarbonizing existing commercial and multifamily buildings much more feasible than a few years ago,” Steven Nadel, ACEEE’s executive director and one of the authors, told me. “The best option may vary from building to building, but there are some exciting new options.”

To date, big, multifamily buildings have generally had two flavors of heat pumps to consider. They can install a large central heat pump system that delivers heating and cooling throughout the structure, or they can go with a series of “mini-split” systems designed to serve each apartment individually. (Yes, there are geothermal heat pumps, too, but those are often even more expensive and complicated to install, especially in urban areas.)

While these options have proven to work, they often require a fair amount of construction work, including upgrading electrical systems, mounting equipment on interior and exterior walls, and running new refrigerant lines throughout the building. That means they cost a lot more than a simple boiler replacement, and that the retrofit process can be disruptive to residents.

In 2022, the New York City Housing Authority launched a contest to try and solve these problems by challenging manufacturers to develop heat pumps that can sit in a window just like an air conditioner. New designs from the two winners, Gradient Comfort and Midea, are just starting to come to market. But another emerging solution, central air-to-water heat pumps, also presents an appealing alternative. These systems avoid major construction because they can integrate with existing radiators or baseboard heaters in buildings that currently use hot water boilers. Instead of burning natural gas or oil to produce hot water, the heat pump warms the water using electricity.

The ACEEE report takes the cost and performance data for these emerging solutions and compares it to results from mini-splits, central heat pumps, geothermal heat pumps, packaged terminal heat pumps — all-in-one devices that sit inside a sleeve in the wall, commonly used in hotels — and traditional boilers fed by biogas or biodiesel.

While data on the newer technologies is limited, so far the results are extremely promising. The report found that window heat pumps are the most cost-effective of the bunch to fully decarbonize large apartment buildings, with an average installation cost of $9,300 per apartment. That’s significantly higher than the estimated $1,200 per apartment cost of a new boiler, but much lower than the $14,000 to $20,000 per apartment price tag of the other heat pump variations, although air-to-water heat pumps came in second. The report also found that window heat pumps could turn out to be the cheapest to operate, with a life cycle cost of about $14,500, compared to $22,000 to $30,000 for boilers using biodiesel or biogas or other heat pump options.

As someone who has followed this industry for several years with a keen interest in new solutions for boiler-heated buildings in the Northeast — where I grew up and currently reside — I was especially wowed by how well the new window heat pumps have performed. New York City installed units from both Midea and Gradient in 24 public housing apartments, placing one in each bedroom and living room, and monitored the results for a full heating season.

Preliminary data shows the units performed swimmingly on every metric.

On ease of installation: It took a total of eight days for maintenance workers to install the units in all 24 apartments, compared to about 10 days per apartment when the Housing Authority put split heat pump systems in another building.

On performance: During the winter, while other apartments in the building were baking in 90-degree Fahrenheit heat from the steam system, the window unit-heated apartments maintained a comfortable 75 to 80 degree range, even as outdoor temperatures dropped to as low as 20 degrees.

On energy and cost: The window unit-heated apartments used a whopping 87% less energy than the rest of the building’s steam-heated apartments did, cutting energy costs per household in half.

On customer satisfaction: A survey of 72 residents returned overwhelmingly positive feedback, with 93% reporting that the temperature was “just right” and 100% reporting they were either “neutral” or “satisfied” with the new units.

The Housing Authority found that the units also lowered energy used for cooling in peak summer since they were more efficient than the older window ACs residents had been using. Next, the agency plans to expand the pilot to two full buildings before deploying the units across its portfolio. The pilot was so successful that utilities in Massachusetts, Vermont, and elsewhere are purchasing units to do their own testing.

The ACEEE report looked at a handful of air-to-water heat pump projects in New York and Massachusetts, as well, only two of which have been completed. The average installation cost per apartment was around $13,500, with each of the buildings retaining a natural gas boiler as a backup, but none had published performance data yet.

Air-to-water heat pumps have only recently come to market in the U.S. after having taken off in Europe, and they don’t yet fit seamlessly into the housing stock here. Existing technology can only heat water to 130 to 140 degrees, which is hot enough for the more efficient hot water radiators common in Europe but too cold for the U.S. market, where hot water systems are designed to carry 160- to 180-degree water, or even steam.

These heat pumps can still work in U.S. buildings, but they require either new radiators to be installed or supplemental heat from a conventional boiler or electric resistance unit. The other downside to an air-to-water system is that it can’t provide cooling unless the building is already equipped with compatible air conditioning units.

One strength of these systems over the window units, however, is that they don’t push costs onto tenants in buildings where the landlord has historically paid for heat. They also may be cheaper to operate than more traditional heat pump options, although data is still extremely limited and depends on the use of supplemental heat.

It’s probably too soon to draw any major conclusions about air-to-water systems, anyway, because new, potentially more effective options are on the way. In 2023, New York State launched a contest challenging manufacturers to develop new decarbonized heating solutions for large buildings. Among the finalists announced last year, six companies were developing heat pumps that could generate higher-temperature hot water and/or steam. One of them is now installing its first demonstration system in an apartment building in Harlem, and two others have similar demonstrations in the works.

The ACEEE report also mentions a few other promising new heat pump formats, such as an all-in-one wall-mounted heat pump from Italian company Ephoca. It’s similar to the window heat pump in that it’s contained in a single device rather than split into an indoor and outdoor unit, so it doesn’t require mounting anything to the outside of the building or worrying about refrigerant lines, although it does require drilling two six-inch holes in the wall for vents. These may be a good option for those whose windows won’t accommodate a window heat pump or who don’t like the aesthetics. New York State is also funding product development for better packaged terminal heat pumps that could slot into wall cavities occupied by less-efficient packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps today.

Gradient and Midea are not yet selling their cold-climate window heat pumps directly to consumers. Gradient brought a version of its technology for more moderate climates to market in 2023, which was only suitable for heating at outdoor temperatures of 40 degrees and higher. But the company has discontinued that model and is focusing on an “all-weather” version designed for cold climates, which is the one that has been installed in the New York City apartments. Gradient told me it is currently selling that model in bulk to multi-family building owners, utilities, and schools. Midea did not respond to my inquiry.

One big takeaway is that even the new school heat pumps designed to be easier and cheaper to install have higher capital costs than buying a boiler and air conditioners — a stubborn facet of many climate solutions, even when they save money in the long run. Canary Media previously reported that the Gradient product would start at $3,800 per unit and the Midea at $3,000. Experts expect the cost to come down as adoption and demand pick up, but the ACEEE report recommends that states develop incentives and financing to help with up-front costs.

“These are not just going to happen on their own. We do need some policy support for them,” Nadel said. In addition to incentives and building decarbonization standards, Nadel raised the idea of discounted electric rates for heat pump users, an idea that has started to gain traction among climate advocates that a few utilities have piloted.

“To oversimplify,” Nadel said, “in many jurisdictions, heat pumps subsidize other customers, and that probably needs to change if this is going to be viable.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include comment from Gradient.

Energy secretary addresses MPs, telling them the UK is getting hotter and wetter with three times the number of days above 30 degrees

As Rowena Mason revealed recently, No 10 has issued guidance that in effect bans civil servants from any level of speaking at events where journalists are present.

Today the Times has published a letter signed by almost 30 experts – including former senior officials, thinktank leaders, academics and union leader – saying this policy is a mistake because it is having “a chilling effect on public discussion” and that it should be withdrawn. They say:

The government’s new guidance that prevents public officials from participating properly in public or stakeholder events is a mistake. Effective government relies on public servants, whose salaries are paid by the taxpayer, hearing directly from businesses, charities, academics and citizens to help them make better policy. They should be able to explain government activity to those same groups.

Because I'm seeing claims like "use fees for government services are a regressive tax on the poor": Any subsidies of automobile impacts are a *huge* tax on the poor, paid for in health, injuries, and the ways in which this mandates car ownership.

If we don't make owning a car incredibly expensive and difficult, we're just gonna continue building auto-only environments which exclude the people who can't afford a car from our communities.

Yesterday I came across this article in the Atlantic, written by Matteo Wong, entitled The AI Industry is Radicalizing.

It makes a strong case that, while the hype men are over-hyping the new technology, the critics are too dismissive. Wong quotes Emily Bender and Alex Hanna’s new book The AI Con as describing it as “a racist pile of linear algebra”.

Full disclosure: about a week before their title was announced, which is like a year and a half ago, I was thinking of writing a book similar in theme, and I even had a title in mind, which was “The AI Con”! So I get it. And to be clear I haven’t read Bender and Hanna’s entire book, so it’s possible they do not actually dismiss it.

And yet, I think Wong has a point. AI not going away, it’s real, it’s replacing people at their job, and we have to grapple with it seriously.

Wong goes on to describe the escalating war, sometimes between Gary Marcus and the true believers. The point is, Wong argues, they are arguing about the wrong thing.

Critical line here: Who cares if AI “thinks” like a person if it’s better than you at your job?

What’s a better way to think about this? Wong has two important lines towards answering this question.

I’m with Wong here. Let’s take it seriously, but not pretend it’s the answer to anyone’s dreams, except the people for whom it’s making billions of dollars. Like any technological tool, it’s going to make our lives different but not necessarily better, depending on the context. And given how many contexts AI is creeping into, there are a ton of ways to think about it. Let’s focus our critical minds on those contexts.

Canadian officials readily condemn democratic erosion elsewhere, yet they remain curiously silent about a quieter version of this trend playing out at home. Here, the threat is cabinet ruling by fiat in the name of efficiency.

There is no shortage of current and former cabinet ministers and prime ministers willing to lend their voices to criticizing democratic backsliding abroad.

In 2018, during her time as foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland — now transport minister — warned of rising authoritarianism around the globe. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien pointed to several European countries drifting away from democratic principles in a 2023 interview. Even Prime Minister Mark Carney, during his tenure as governor of the Bank of England, raised concerns in 2019 about the future of democratic accountability.

Yet these leaders never grapple with the issue of Canada’s institutions sliding into illiberal governance — not through coups but through convenience.

Across the country, governments are turning to emergency-style powers to accelerate infrastructure projects. These measures are not being used to respond to natural disasters or insurrections. Instead, they are framed as a reaction to U.S. tariffs and long-standing regulatory bottlenecks. The language used is of urgency, but the outcome is the same: democratic norms are sidelined in favour of executive overreach.

More troubling is that these tendencies are becoming structurally entrenched. Over recent decades, Canadian prime ministers, premiers and their advisers have centralized decision-making and tightened party discipline. This shift to “governing from the centre” has weakened other democratic institutions such as cabinet, the public service, party caucuses, and legislative committees. The result is an erosion of internal checks and balances, replaced by more unilateral executive action.

With power concentrated, governments have found it easier to use more sweeping measures.

During the pandemic, governments imposed broad restrictions, sometimes inconsistently, such as closing places of worship while allowing bars and restaurants to operate.

In 2022, the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act to end the trucker convoy protest, assuming broad powers unseen in peacetime for over 50 years to manage what was a disruptive but civil demonstration.

The trend is quite clear. Governments are not averse to limiting fundamental freedoms when it suits political or bureaucratic convenience.

Now, a different form of executive overreach — focused on economic governance — is being formalized. Federal Bill C‑5 allows cabinet to fast-track projects “in the national interest” with a single sweeping permit, bypassing many individual federal approvals and parliamentary review.

British Columbia’s Bill 15 gives provincial cabinet the authority to exempt designated projects from environmental reviews and municipal approvals.

Ontario’s Bill 5 establishes Special Economic Zones where the provincial cabinet can sidestep long-standing municipal planning rules and broader regulatory requirements.

All are justified as responses to trade pressures. But they work by systematically weakening public accountability.

To be clear, the economic challenge is real. U.S. tariffs could seriously affect Canadian exports and industrial competitiveness. Governments must respond. And yes, Canada’s current permitting and regulatory systems are too slow and cumbersome. Major projects can take 10 to 15 years or more to get off the ground. Something has to change.

But here’s the critical point: these very bills implicitly acknowledge that existing laws and procedures are not up to the task. Governments admit that our regulatory systems need revision. But not one of the governments behind these bills has committed to fixing the broken frameworks they now bypass. Instead of reform, they are choosing to work around it, by concentrating authority in the cabinet.

That’s the danger.

I can accept, reluctantly, the use of extraordinary tools in response to extraordinary economic risks. But that acceptance must be conditional: governments must commit to reforming the policy and regulatory environment so that such measures are no longer needed. If these bills are truly emergency responses, then reform must follow.

Without that commitment, we are normalizing provisional executive control. And that risks shifting Canada further into what political scientists call “executive aggrandizement,” where elected leaders expand power legally — but illegitimately — by eroding the role of legislatures, committees and public scrutiny.

These shortcuts could also bring economic costs. They distort market signals by giving some projects preferential treatment, create uncertainty for investors, and erode public trust in fairness. Moreover, small and medium-sized enterprises are disadvantaged, lacking lobbying power to obtain fast-track exemptions. Consultation becomes symbolic rather than substantive.

While Freeland and Chretien are right to call out democratic backsliding abroad, their warning rings hollow when they ignore democratic erosion at home.

Canada is not immune to the democratic recession gripping other advanced democracies. In fact, we may be particularly susceptible to erosion by legalism and inertia. Democratic backsliding doesn’t always come through force. Sometimes, it is packaged as regulatory reform and justified as progress.

If governments believe exceptional powers are needed, even on a temporary basis, they must commit to reforming the policies they are overriding, so that such powers do not become the default.

An effective government requires not just acting quickly but ensuring the institutions that support democracy remain strong.

The post Op-Ed: Canada’s dangerous drift toward executive rule appeared first on CANADIAN AFFAIRS.