Monthly Archives: September 2021

In late August 2017, millions of people in northern Japan got a startling, early morning text message. Missile alert, it read, before telling people to take cover. North Korea had launched a ballistic missile, which flew over Japans northern island of Hokkaido before landing in the sea. Two weeks later, North Korea fired another missile through Japanese airspace. Pyongyangs provocations are not the only ones that have been making Japanese policymakers anxious. Although China has been active in the waters and airspace near Japanese territory for a long time, over the last several years, the level and types of activity have increased. In the air, for example, Japanese fighters are scramblingalmost twice per dayin response to Chinese military aircraft entering Japans Air Defense Identification Zone.

In light of the current security environment, many Japanese decision-makers have been looking for ways to bolster deterrence using their countrys own defense capabilities. One option, although still in the realm of the theoretical, includes the acquisition of ground-launched land-attack missiles. Japanese policymakers eschew the terms long-range strike and offensive strike. Instead, they describe such missile capabilities using terms like deterrence or self-defense, an approach that dates back to the 1950s when the Ichiro Hatoyama administration said the spirit of the constitution did not mean the government had to sit and wait to die in the event of a missile attack. Although the Hatoyama administration did not specifically refer to missile capabilities, the statement has been recognized as providing a legal basis for the acquisition of capabilities to strike foreign bases. While the debate among Japanese policymakers over whether the country should acquire ground-attack missiles never completely disappeared over the subsequent years, it focused largely on the legal considerations related to possession of such weapons.

In the late 1990s, after North Korea demonstrated an ability to strike Japan, the debate began to move beyond theoretical legal discussions to focus on the operational rationales for having strike capabilities. The most recent iteration of this debate began in March 2017, when Japans ruling Liberal Democratic Party started to examine the issue of acquiring enemy base attack capability. Subsequently, after the Shinzo Abe administration decided to suspend deployment of two Aegis Ashore systems in June 2020, many Japanese policymakers became more focused on how to enhance the countrys capacity to deter. Concern over Chinas threat to Taiwanandits implications for Japans security has further fueled Japanese decision-makers interest in missiles, as haveNorth Koreas advancing strategic and conventional capabilities, including a purportednewtype of tactical guided missile.

Most of the analysis and commentary about Japanese policymakers recent interest in procuring ground-based strike missiles has focused on the deterrent advantages they would provide. While these discussions cogently assess how such weapons might affect adversaries calculations, they rarely consider the broader potential consequences that Japanese procurement of strike capabilities may have for the U.S.-Japanese alliance. In reality, any Japanese acquisition of such weapons could carry substantial implications for the alliance in relation to planning, operations, and procurement decisions. Those implications meritgreater debate, discussion, and planning among Japanese and American policymakers.

Japans Dangerous Neighborhood

As JapansNational Security Strategydescribes it, the countrys surrounding region is becoming ever more severe. Retired Lt. Gen. Koichi Isobe, who served in the Ground Self-Defense Force,notes that the past decade has been the first time Japan has ever been forced to confront threats from the north, the Korean Peninsula, and the southwest islands simultaneously.

While North Korea has kidnapped Japanese nationals, intruded into Japanese waters with spy ships, and fired ballistic missiles over and toward Japan, it is Pyongyangs advancing nuclear weapons and delivery systems that are the most alarming for Tokyo. North Koreas capabilities are growing in number and diversity, and they constitute grave and imminent threats to Japans security, in the words of the2021 Defense of Japanwhite paper.

Chinas rapidly modernizing armed forces represent perhaps an even greater threat to Japan, one that ranges from the gray zone to the nuclear realm, including in the so-called new domains of space, cyber, and the electromagnetic spectrum. In addition to Chinese military aircraft entering Japans Air Defense Identification Zone, Chinese vessels are routinely sailing in Japanese waters, including its territorial waters. These activities stress both Japans Coast Guard and its Self-Defense Forces.

These increasingly frequent instances of Chinese coercion, alongside similar actions directed against Taiwan, have led some JapaneseDiet membersto proposereinforcing ties between Japan and Taiwanin an effort to dissuade China from pressuring Taiwan. And the summary of Tokyoslatest defense white paperstates that stabilizingthe situation surrounding Taiwan is important for Japans security and the stability of the international community, reinforcing recentpublic signalsfrom senior figures in the Japanese defense establishment that the country has a national interest in Taiwans security.

As the risks to Japans security appear to grow, the public debate in Japan increasingly focuses on how best to reinforce deterrence. Some argue that deterrence by denial might be sufficient to dissuade Beijing or Pyongyang from taking aggressive actions. Others, however, argue that Japan should consider the desirability of procuring strike capabilities that would allow the Self-Defense Forces to enhance deterrence through the threat of punishment.

Japans Current Missiles

Japans Self-Defense Forces are modern armed forces with advanced capabilities, including a newly introduced capacity foramphibious operationsin defense of the countrys remote islands. While the Self-Defense Forces possess the abilityto hold enemy platforms at risk from the air or sea, they do not possess ground-launched ballistic or cruise missiles with sufficient ranges to strike an adversarys territory, and even their capabilities for targeting air and naval platforms are of limited range.

According to opensources, Japans currentType-03surface-to-air missiles have a range of 31 miles, and an upgraded versioncurrently under development will extend that to 62 miles. Similarly, starting in 2019, the Self-Defense Forces began deploying advanced Type-12 anti-ship cruise missile batteries at selected sites across the countrys southwest island chain, but these have a maximum range of only 124 miles. In 2019, it wasreportedthat the range of these missiles would also be extended, to 560 miles. Assuming the Japanese government meets the goals it set out for itself in its most recentMid-Term Defense Program, by 2023, the Self-Defense Forces will field more strike options from the air, specificallyJoint Strike Missiles (with a range of approximately 172 miles) and the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (approximately 620 miles).

These capabilities all have the potential to deliver a munitions package far from Japanese territory, but they lack the advantages of ground-based missiles, such as survivability and deeper magazines. In analyzing the implications of Japanese ground-launched missiles for the U.S.-Japanese alliance, we limit our focus to the potential consequences of any decision by the Japanese government to acquire missiles like ground-launched variants of Tomahawks or medium-range ballistic missiles. Although the maximum ranges of such missiles are currently unknown as they are not yet developed, a useful point of reference is what the United States is hoping to develop and deploy. According to early reports, Washington is planning on a ground-launched variant of the Tomahawk and a ground-launched ballistic missile that could have maximum ranges of 620 miles and 2,485 miles, respectively.

If Japan acquired missiles with similar ranges, depending on their deployment, Japan could strike Chinese and North Korean territory. For example, the distance from the Japanese island of Okinawa, where there is a concentration of U.S. and Japanese armed forces, to Chinas east coast is approximately 550 miles. And from any of the Self-Defense Force bases in northern Kyushu, such as Ainoura, Sasebo, or Kasuga, Pyongyang is about 460 miles away. From these same locations, Beijing is approximately 870 miles away. If Japan acquired missiles possibly capable of reaching three times that distance, large strategic areas of both China and North Korea would be well within range of them.

Consequences for the U.S.-Japanese Alliance

It is Japans sovereign right to decide whether or not to pursue ground-based strike options. Given the countrys various constitutional, legal, and policy restrictions on certain types of capabilities and the ability to use force, acquisition of ground-based missiles that can hit another country would likely requirethe government to characterize these as defensive weapons or standoff missiles. That, however, would only be the first step. Attaining these new capabilities would carry significant consequences for the alliance between the United States and Japan in areas like planning, operations, and procurement decisions. These become clear when considering two hypothetical scenarios.

The first is one often mentioned by Japanese officials as a hypothetical case for when Japan could use strike capabilities: North Korea preparing tolaunch, or already having launched, missiles at Japan. While Japans right to act in self-defense is indisputable, evaluating this scenario raises questions for the United States and Japan that would need to be resolved. In considering any North Korean scenario where Pyongyang has initiated hostilities, Japanese policymakers should work on the assumption that South Korea and the United States would be involved. If Japanese decision-makers are willing to consider strikes against North Korean missile pads, their U.S. counterparts would want to ensure that America avoids getting pulled into executing any plan that is not of its own choosing. Additionally, American policymakers would likely want to coordinate and incorporate potential Japanese plans into existing U.S.-South Korean operational plans and approved target lists. And because Japanese missiles may fly over South Korea or provoke an attack against that country by North Korea, which might decide to counter threats to its south Tokyos plan would need to be coordinated with Seoul or at least with Washington.

The problem, however, is that Japan is not included in U.S.-South Korean planning efforts. Regardless of the state of Japanese-South Korean ties, the United States (or South Korea once operational control is transferred) is unlikely to agree to any Japanese plan to strike or counterstrike North Korea as that could increase the risk of friendly fire against U.S. or South Korean forces operating in the theater. Such an option would also be likely to cause problems for the existing preparations of the United States and South Korea, as well as for the agreed division of operational responsibilities between them: Japanese missile operations could, for example, disrupt plans related to when and where U.S. and South Korean forces should be at the onset of hostilities. While the solution would betrilateral collaborationin the U.S.-South Korean planning process to involve Japan,continuing sour tiesbetween Tokyo and Seoul likely preclude such a solution for the foreseeable future.

The second scenario to consider is a conflict involving China, and that case would generate distinct challenges for the U.S.-Japanese alliance, with three issues being especially problematic.

First, Chinahousesmany of its nuclear capabilities alongside its conventional ones. Should Japan field weapons capableof reaching these missile sites, the Chinese governments strategic calculations could be adversely affected. Although this may be a positive development from a deterrence standpoint, any contingency potentially involving nuclear weapons would prompt the involvement of U.S. Strategic Command and levels of classification that go well beyond what Japanese officials are likely privy to (as Tokyo does not possess strategic weapons of any type). American policymakers may be uncomfortable with Japanese operations that carry the prospect of strategic escalation but that have not been coordinated with U.S. planners in advance.

A second issue stems from Chinas size. Because China is vastly larger than North Korea, Japans Self-Defense Forces would likely need help gathering operational intelligence as they work to build their own capabilities, including cyber, electronic warfare, long-range radars, sensors,and satellites. Pouring resources into these capabilities, assuming Japans overall defense budget is not greatly increased, would be likely to negatively affect Japans procurement efforts in other critical defense areas, possibly causing capability gaps elsewhere that might necessitate greater efforts from the United States.

Finally, unless fully planned for and framed within an alliance operational construct in advance, Japan and the United States may have difficulty achieving consensus on strike operation objectives. Would American officials be satisfied with Japan only striking specific tactical targets like individual launchers? Would Washington urge Tokyo to aim at more operational-level facilities and systems that enable China to conduct or sustain its war effort? Or would the United States want Japan to use its strike options to impair Chinas broader East China Sea operational area to enable the United States to project forces deep into enemy territory? This, in turn, raises questions about differences between U.S. and Japanese decision-makers in their willingness to pursue high-value targets. Such issues may need to be discussed thoroughly and resolved in advance of any move by Japan to field ground-based, long-range strike capabilities. And such questions are not likely to be settled easily.

The Need for New and Expanded Alliance Discussions

Examining the potential consequences for the U.S.-Japanese alliance is not the same as evaluating whether Japan should acquire strike options or not. We are not making any argument for or against Japanese strike capabilities. Nor do the insights gleaned from the two scenarios offered above exhaust the possible consequences that Japanese procurement of ground-based strike options might have for the alliance. Other issues that may arise include matters related to doctrine and concept formation, training, command and control, intelligence sharing, operational coordination, posture, airspace deconfliction, and air and missile defenses. At the broadest level, there may be questions related to the nature of the alliance itself and whether it is shifting from its traditionalshield-spear relationshipto one more akin to two spears, albeit of different sizes.

Our objective is to emphasize that any Japanese acquisition of ground-based strike capabilities would have significant consequences for the U.S.-Japanese alliance and to highlight some of them. As the robust debates in Japan demonstrate, there may be deterrent advantages for the country should it field these capabilities. Yet if Japan does so, American and Japanese policymakers may need to have a new and expanded set of conversations about how such missiles will be used and how the alliance could adjust to incorporate them into this relationship.

Jeffrey W. Hornungand Scott W. Haroldaresenior political scientistsat the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

Image: U.S. Marine Corps (Photo by Lance Cpl. Savannah Mesimer)

Read the original here:

Japan's Potential Acquisition of Ground-Launched Land-Attack Missiles: Implications for the US-Japanese Alliance - War on the Rocks

The decision to declare the precinct a Capital City zone triggered a massive hike in land values, a frenzy of high-rise apartment tower applications and approvals, and windfall paper profits to landowners and speculators, among whom were some senior Liberal Party members and donors, including the partys honorary federal treasurer Andrew Burnes.

Loading

At the time there was no binding master plan nor height limits, nor any mechanism to capture any of the uplift in land values money that could have helped pay upfront for the infrastructure and services.

In 2015 a Labor-appointed committee found Mr Guys Fishermans Bend move was unprecedented in the developed world in the 21st century.

Confidential departmental briefs from early 2011 to 2013 revealed how senior bureaucrats had urged Mr Guy to buy key strategic sites before allowing redevelopment of the precinct. But, over 15 months, at the behest of the ministers office, the department gradually dropped its demands.

The Andrews governments Planning Minister, Richard Wynne, later knocked back an application by Fragrance for an 82-level tower on the site, and reversed Mr Guys rule change that allowed the overshadowing of the Yarra.

Despite a Baillieu government ban on fundraising at the time, Mr Guy attended a secret fundraising dinner in 2011 with leading Melbourne developers, some of whom were seeking planning approvals.

When The Age revealed the dinners in 2013, a spokeswoman for Mr Guy said the minister was told that the developers had not paid to attend the dinners.

She stressed that he had rejected some of their planning applications.

Developers and landowners who had tipped thousands of dollars into Liberal Party coffers were among the big winners from Mr Guys opening of green-wedge areas and farmland to development on Melbournes fringe in 2012.

Matthew Guy as opposition leader.Credit:Daniel Pockett

Among those celebrating the expansion of the citys boundary were the owner, the developer and the lobbyist connected to an egg farm known as Brompton Lodge in the City of Casey.

In 2011, The Age revealed that the trio farmer Peter Carpenter, developer Watsons, and lobbyist and former Liberal MP Geoff Leigh were among those poised to share in a $500 million bonanza if the property was rezoned and developed.

At the time Mr Carpenter told The Age he had met Mr Guy, then shadow planning minister, twice at Liberal fundraisers before the 2010 state election.

In August 2017, The Age revealed that Mr Guy had dined on lobster and Grange wine with the alleged boss of the Victorian mafia, Tony Madafferi, and relatives in Victoria in April that year.

Alleged Melbourne mafia boss Tony Madafferi.Credit:Jason South

A Liberal insider had sought to use the dinner to extract donations from Mr Madafferi and his relatives and funnel them into party coffers. Mr Guy insisted he knew nothing about donations.

An invoice was issued by deputy Liberal leader David Hodgett in 2013, directing the developer to place a $10,000 donation into Mr Hodgetts electorate branch account for sponsorship of an industry forum.

In reality the industry forum was an intimate lunch at a private penthouse attended by two developers with Mr Guy and staffers.

Leaked Liberal emails revealed that at the lunch, plans by the developer to progress an inner-Melbourne development were discussed with Mr Guy.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the days most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

See original here:

The greatest controversies of Matthew Guy - The Age

If the Greater Toronto Area West Highway, or 413, is built, the major transportation corridor will have a generational impact on Peel region.

A decision on its future now lies in the hands of the federal government after a request from Environmental Defence and climate law group Ecojustice asked Ottawa to revisit the impact of the provincially approved 400-series highway, arguing the project would have sweeping consequences on everything from federally protected at-risk species to the health of ecologically vital lands that are also safeguarded from human activity.

The 2021 election will not only determine the next prime minister, it will likely decide the outcome of the 413 Highway, being aggressively pushed by Doug Ford and his majority PC government.

Climate change has been spoken about routinely on the campaign trail while leaders of each party explain how their platform will successfully mitigate the ongoing problem of carbon emissions, simultaneously creating more green jobs and economic growth.

All parties promise to boost transit projects and green transportation in general. But the New Democrats and Greens don't even mention the word highway, in their platform while both the Convervative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party do the Conservatives explain an all-weather road built in northern Canada will connect to the existing national highway. The Liberals mention the word in a paragraph about building a clean power grid, Just as past Canadian governments invested in the national railway and highways..., the platform states.

Thats it. No mention of the GTA West Highway project or what each party will do about it, if elected.

While recently visiting the riding of MississaugaMalton, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau was asked by The Pointer if he opposes the construction of Highway 413.

Being a provincial matter, makes me very cautious about giving a direct answer. But I think Canadians can see the level to which we are committed to protection of our lands, and our coastal areas, Trudeau responded during the press conference.

While he did not offer his own position on the provincially-approved highway (which the previous Ontario Liberal government scrapped), Trudeau did reinforce his party's work on climate action.

We are committed to doing the right thing, protecting the environment. And we will always stand up for that rigorous environmental approach, Trudeau told The Pointer.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau had a press conference in an airplane hangar in the riding of Mississauga Malton.

(Natasha ONeill/The Pointer)

The leaders general thoughts on the broader issue of smart land use were also expressed by Liberal candidate for the riding of DufferinCaledon, Lisa Post (the corridor would cut through her riding) but she went a step further. In an email to The Pointer, Post wrote, We must think of better ways to move people in our riding, we must also always keep in mind the environmental impact of such decisions. We are in a climate crisis, and we must do everything possible to protect our green spaces from harm. Any proposed development must keep that factor in mind. As such, I cannot support the 413 in its current form."

An NDP spokesperson did not directly answer the same question when asked if the party supports or opposes the construction of the GTA West Highway.

While tackling the climate crisis and creating good jobs, the NDP will double the investment in public transit projects across Canada, help municipalities fully electrify their fleets by 2030 and make fares more affordable, or even free, for Canadians, the Party spokesperson wrote in an email.

The spokesperson criticized Trudeau and the Conservatives trend of missing national carbon emissions targets.

The Green party referred The Pointers question to Tim Grant, candidate for UniversityRosedale in Toronto, who doubles as the Partys municipal affairs and transportation critic.

Greens, federally and provincially, do not support the GTA West Highway. Such projects eat up farmland, facilitate urban sprawl, and surprisingly, worsen traffic congestion, Grant wrote in an email. The money to build it would be better spent on better transit within the municipalities in Peel and Halton Regions.

The Pointer reached out to Green party candidate for DufferinCaldeon, Jenni Le Forestier, who has done a lot of the heavy lifting locally to defeat the 413 Highway plan, even publicly challenging Caledon council members such as Jennifer Innis and Mayor Allan Thompson who have pushed to build the controversial highway. She said in an email, As I have done for the last 10 years, I will absolutely continue to advocate against the 413 highway. It is an environmental disaster. Yet another highway is unnecessary infrastructure that will create more car dependency.

Conservative candidate Kyle Seeback, who is seeking reelection in the riding, did not respond to questions, neither did Party Leader Erin OToole.

Mississauga Centre Liberal candidate Omar Alghabra also responded to questions on the issue at the Trudeau press conference in Malton, telling The Pointer, The Minister of Environment, Jonathan Wilkinson, is conducting an Environmental Assessment Review of this project. So as we've committed to Canadians, we're showing a diligent and a rigorous environmental assessment process.

While the parties campaign nationally, a big issue for many Peel voters is the decision on the massive highway that would plow through the southern tip of the protected Greenbelt.

The Region is the fastest growing area in Ontario, and as it moves toward more than two-million residents in the next couple decades, how Peel manages its unrelenting growth is the big question.

The Region of Peel and the City of Mississauga voted to oppose the routes construction, while Brampton and Caledon backed calls for Ottawa to step in to assess the plan, with the possibility of overriding the Provinces authority with direction to scrap the entire project.

Travelling up from Milton, along Bramptons western edge and then curving east through Caledon across to Vaughan, the highway will rip through sensitive habitats and valuable agricultural lands, while spawning more sprawling suburban planning alongside.

Route for the GTA West Highway.

(Environmental Defence)

Regional and municipal targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) will be difficult to meet if a huge, 400-series highway promotes single-occupancy vehicle use and sprawling subdivision designs. Creating denser, more walkable communities inside Peels boundary would be redundant if a highway is built promoting more vehicle traffic and detached homes, along with low density employment such as warehouses and big-box retail that are commonly build along large highway corridors.

Its the type of planning tha characterized the 60s, 70s and 80s, before the transition to smart growth and sustainability.

Peel is undergoing its municipal comprehensive review (MCR) a plan for the Region until 2050 mandated by the Ontario government. It has to lay out where and how the Region will accommodate future residents and jobs over the next few decades. Expected to grow to at least 2.2 million residents by that time, both Brampton and Mississauga will host close to 1 million residents each, and Caledon will be home to 300,000 people by 2041. The Region has outpaced the expected population growth for 2031 by five years, as newcomers continue to flood into the area.

Federal candidates and the major party platforms have failed to link smart growth with issues like, climate change, economic productivity, job creation and mental health.

Land designated for agriculture doesnt just produce food, it also helps mitigate carbon pollution in the atmosphere. A study by Nature United explains how protection efforts for agricultural land in Canada can reduce emissions by 30 megatonnes by 2030.

Only 5 percent of the GHG emission reductions identified come from restoration efforts like tree planting programs or wetland restorations. It means while municipalities celebrate initiatives such as successful tree planting programs, any mitigating impact those trees have on the climate picture is completely erased by making poor land-use decisions that compromise Greenbelt spaces or destroy prime agricultural land.

When factoring the additional carbon released into the atmosphere from highway use and sprawling residential and commercial buildings that cause large levels of carbon emissions for heating and cooling, a project like the 413 is a death knell for our struggling planet.

Both Cities and the Region have ambitious carbon emission targets to hit; growing food locally, cutting out transportation emissions while reducing the residential and commercial carbon footprint could drastically reduce current emissions levels.

Iceland community garden in Mississauga is teaching residents to grow and harvest produce in their own backyard.

(Natasha ONeill/The Pointer)

A recent Environmental Defence report shows how detrimental the highway could be. Modelling commissioned by Environmental Defence shows the route could cause 17.4-million tonnes of CO2 emissions by 2050. Even in a scenario where a federal target of 100 percent electric cars by 2050 is achieved, Environmental Defence still estimates the addition of Highway 413 would lead to 13-million more tonnes of CO2 by the same year.

More CO2 in the atmosphere directly impacts the quality of air humans breathe. Health Canada estimates approximately 6,700 people already die prematurely each annually due to air pollution. The World Health Organization estimates in the 2090s, more than two-billion people will be breathing polluted air beyond levels considered safe. Green spaces not only sequester carbon and slow warming, they filter the already polluted air and reduce harmful carbon levels.

Along with clean oxygen to breathe, water is another life or death necessity for humans. As urban areas grow, populations add stress on local waterways that are vital to humans and plant and animal life.

For years, conservation authorities across Ontario have been ringing the alarm bell about the presence of chloride in local watersheds. Chloride is a compound found naturally in most water systems, occurring as sodium chloride, but elevated levels can be harmful to aquatic and human health.

While most of the Region gets its water from Lake Ontario, the streams, creeks and rivers collecting water from highways runoff into the lake.

The Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) which cover Peel, are working with the Region and local municipalities to find solutions to abate this hazardous salt runoff.

Another highway through Peel will increase the amount of saline solution used on the Regions roads, and while its better than solid salt it still increases the amount of sodium found in Lake Ontario.

Although high sodium levels are not immediately harmful to residents, it can have an adverse effect on the long-term health of some people.

While sodium isnt toxic, more than 20 milligrams per litre of sodium in drinking water may affect people with hypertension or cardiovascular disease, Peel Regions website reads.

The construction of the highway would also lead to capacity being reached rather quickly, eliminating any congestion relief it is supposed to create. The concept known as induced demand will lead to more people using cars and will inevitably lead to higher GHG emissions.

Along with sprawling subdivisions, a 400-series highway would bring more warehouses, logistics operations and fulfillment centres, in between low-slung mega-retail big box stores. Throw in some spread out houses and, voil, the worst of the 70s and 80s all over again: Few jobs, those created would be low-income, poor tax returns for all three levels of government, massive tracts of land eaten up and more environmental damage.

Single and semi-detached homes in the region have skyrocketed in price but the demand continues to pour in.

(Isaac Callan/The Pointer)

Perhaps the most damaging consequence of a new highway would be felt by the animal world. Dropping loads of asphalt along an environmentally sensitive area with species already endangered or threatened will knock out diverse ecosystems.

The Pointer previously published a piece on the species impacted by the highways route using Ontarios Natural Heritage Information Centre which collects data on ecosystems and sightings of threatened or endangered species.

The 4-to-6-lane highway is expected to run approximately 59 kilometres connecting Halton and York regions running just north of the border between Brampton and Caledon.

The Pointer confirmed 29 species either listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern have been spotted along the highways route in the last 6 months, 21 of them inside the areas where proposed interchanges could be built, transforming valuable habitat into a hub of automobile traffic and human activity.

This includes 6 species listed as endangered, 7 as threatened, and 8 species of concern. In many cases, the species are named on both provincial and federal government at-risk species lists, meaning their habitat is usually protected under government legislation. While species of concern dont receive such protection, they are closely monitored due to their vulnerability to potentially becoming threatened or endangered.

Many species spotted along the route of the 413 are endangered or threatened to become extinct.

(Joel Wittnebel/The Pointer)

The decision on the 413 will create a trickle-down effect in the Region of Peel. Whether it will mean denser, greener and cleaner communities, or more vehicles and residential sprawl, depends on the decision by the next federal government. And its the voters that get to choose who that will be.

The stakes for the future of Peel have never been higher.

Email: [emailprotected]

Twitter: @taasha__15

COVID-19 is impacting all Canadians. At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories relating to the pandemic and those of public interestto ensure every resident of Brampton and Mississauga has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trialHERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you

See the rest here:

Highway 413 is a provincial plan that can be quashed or saved by the next federal government - The Pointer

The city of Fremont, California, home of the Tesla manufacturing plant, is located 50 minutes southeast of San Francisco. In addition to being a popular bedroom community for well-to-do tech employees, Fremont is home to what is likely the largest community of Afghan immigrants in the United States. Official counts have found as many as 5,000 Afghans in the area known as Little Kabul, but the unofficialand probably more accuratenumber is closer to 30,000.

So youd think that American diplomats and relocation-assistance programs would identify Fremont as an ideal destination for the incoming wave of Afghan refugees.

Instead, the State Department has warned Afghans away from not just Fremont but all coastal California cities. Last week, the State Department released a list of cities that it deems suitable for Afghans who qualify for Special Immigrant Visas, or SIVs, such as interpreters or others who have assisted the U.S. government. In a telling indictment of Californias housing policies, not one of the 19 cities considered affordable for refugees were in the nations most populous state. A very limited exception was granted to the inland capital, Sacramento, but it came with a warning about a critical shortage in housing availability. Like in so many California neighborhoods, the average rent for a two-bedroom home in the Afghan-heavy Sacramento community of North Highlands has doubled in just the past five years.

For decades now, Californias housing situation has forced residents to abandon the state for cities that build a lot more affordable housing, such as Dallas, Phoenix, and Houston. Now this domestic phenomenon has officially gone international: Although a few refugees are being resettled in Californiaand with the affordability crisis, even that tiny number is strugglingthe Golden State is no longer the haven for refugees that it once was.

Read: When the refugees landed

California has been dealing with a serious housing-affordability issue for years, and the problem is only worsening, says Amer Rashid of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. This means reexamining and expanding funding for programs like Refugee Cash Assistance so that the resources refugees receive upon arrival correlate more closely to Californias cost of living. We love to say we welcome refugees in California, but we need to do more to act on it by ensuring it is feasible for refugees to join our communities.

The situation may sound ho-humCalifornia is expensive. Whats new?but the implications go far beyond the plight of refugees in search of a better future. California is not affordable to most Californians; the pace of housing growth is so anemic that children born in California today are almost certain to be forced to leave the state or vacate the coast for an affordable home. In 2020, the states population shrunk for the first time ever, and research shows that most of the departed are low- and middle-class Californians.

This is no accident. The states housing policies were designed with this outcome in mind.

Californias deliberate housing shortage took 50 years to engineer, and may take nearly as long to unwind. Since the 1970s, the state has imposed de facto population limits and reduced housing capacity in its coastal communities, where housing demand and job growth is the highest, and it has done so with the support of a small but vocal coalition of liberals and small-c conservative property owners.

The state of California now ranks 49th in housing units per person. According to the 2020 census, California had the lowest inventory of vacant housing in the country. Exclusionary zoning laws, Reagan-era caps on property taxes, and the dismantling of public housing have done what they were intended to do: keep nonwhite people and non-nuclear-family households out of our communities. This all happened during a period when the Latino and Asian populationsboth immigrant and native-bornwere the primary source of population growth in the state.

The Reagan Revolution won decisively here even among liberals who bought into the antiquated, Malthusian idea of capping the population. The result: California, which has the highest share of foreign-born immigrants in the U.S., at 27 percent, is regressing from a golden land of opportunity for immigrants to a quasi-feudal society, where housing stability is a luxury available only to property heirs and the wealthy. The states median home price is now $800,000. Those Refugees Welcome signs you see on the lawns of homes in California's famously progressive cities, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco? Only the wealthiest people can afford to live in many, if not most, of those neighborhoods, thanks to the lack of affordable and available rental housing.

The refugee signs sometimes sit next to Black Lives Matter signs, in neighborhoods with no Black people. Thats also by design.

Californias progressive cities have shown almost total disinterest in confronting the problem, even as the state legislature has begun to lead on housing reform. More than 75 percent of the urban land in California bans multifamily housing, the key to reducing household overcrowding, particularly among large, multigenerational, and extended-family households. Local leaders resistance to reformespecially in the suburbshas long prevented the state legislature from allowing even the most modest changes. However, the legislature finally passed a measure in late August that will allow two-family housing in neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes; one Los Angeles legislator cited the bill as a way to help multigenerational immigrant households and admonished the L.A. city council for its opposition. The bill now awaits Governor Gavin Newsoms signature.

In addition to the growing push for more housing from the state capitol, the Biden administration is taking an aggressive stance on getting more homes built in places that need them. But these long-term initiatives to bring greater housing affordability wont affect refugee resettlement in the immediate future.

Read: The California dream is dying

Newly resettled refugees are mostly families. In many cases, only the men are able to work, which means that its not uncommon for these families to crowd into one-bedroom apartments. Thats why the State Department didnt recommend California cities, even those with Afghan populations: The state has the five most overcrowded cities in America, and two- and three-bedroom housing is in short supply. In the Bay Area, rents for houses of this size range from from $3,000 to $5,000 a month. But the federal Refugee Cash Assistance program pays just $325 per adult and $200 per child each month for eight months.

In the rare cases where refugees do make it to high-cost metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area, they typically dont stay for long. Helene Eisenberg, a descendant of Jewish refugees, is a sponsor of refugee resettlement for the International Rescue Committee. She recalls helping an Afghan family settle in Oaklands Fruitvale neighborhood in 2017. The husband and wife were living in a one-bedroom apartment with four children, Eisenberg says. The husband seemed so tired from interrupted sleep from the four being in one bedroom. When the landlord raised the rent, the family relocated to Tracy, a far-flung suburb thats growing fast to accommodate the Bay Areas working class. In Tracy, at least, they could afford a two-bedroom home.

At some point, Californians have to ask ourselves: Howbeyond the lawn signsdo we support refugees? By what metrics? Conservative Texas has three cities on the State Departments list of places whose policies and housing affordability are refugee-friendly. Houston and Dallas, whose diversity in Black, Asian, and Latino residents continues to grow, are much more hospitable to refugees than the so-called liberal bastions of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Houstons and Dallass housing production per capita is more than double that of both California cities. Thats not a coincidence either.

What many ostensibly progressive California cities fail to understand is that housing affordability is refugee policy. If you want an inclusive community where people seeking refuge can actually live, you need to add a lot more housing. Theres no way around it.

See original here:

Why Afghan Refugees Arent Actually Welcome in California - The Atlantic

Housing affordability is one of the top federal election concerns. However, there is no clear solution to fix the current complex housing crisis in Canada.

The Liberal party is hoping to build on their National Housing Strategy by incentivizing developers to construct rental properties. The Conservatives are also advocating for increasing the housing supply, yet the image accompanying their housing proposals is of a suburban neighbourhood full of single-family dwellings. This is currently the most unaffordable form of housing.

The NDP has the most ambitious plan, promising to build 250,000 affordable rental units in the next five years. The parties all suggest solving the housing affordability crisis by increasing supply, especially rental and regulating foreign investment, but most importantly they focus on making it easier for people to buy a home.

Election promises of more affordable housing are effective because they tap into the narrative of the good life. Housing is central to the-rags-to riches trope because home ownership is scripted as central to a successful and full life.

Since the 18th century, governments have used the dream of home ownership as a settlement strategy, a tool to decide who should live where. In Canada, land was advertised as open and empty, immigrants left their home countries to fulfil their dream to own land and build a new life.

The settler dream of home ownership rests on stolen Indigenous land a fact most Canadians would prefer not to acknowledge. Home ownership became a symbol that the land no longer belonged to Indigenous people. And houses dotting the landscape became proof that settlers were a permanent fixture.

As a society, we have largely accepted home ownership as a guiding narrative because shelter is essential. However, the foundation of this national dream rests on the theft, deception and destruction of Indigenous communities.

Home ownership formed the creation of a landed class, as those with financial means could get access to stable and secure housing and those without were left scrambling or were pushed to the margins. The lack of a stable and secure home was seen as the failure of the individual. Affordable housing is not viewed as a human right that should be protected by government.

Over the last century, housing affordability has reached several crisis points. During the Great Depression, the dream of home ownership began to falter. Rather than investing in an affordable rental market to ensure stable and secure housing, the federal government encouraged home ownership by regulating mortgages.

Those with financial means were able to secure adequate shelter. Those without resources were often, literally, left out in the cold. This perpetuated the earlier settlement narrative that only home ownership would ensure stable and secure housing.

The housing crisis reemerged again after the Second World War when it became increasingly apparent that there was a lack of housing for low-income families and returning veterans who were promised homes. The national dream of home ownership was re-animated in the post-war period to encourage suburban development, which catered to middle-class families. Low-income families were left to scramble for the token public housing developments or continued to live in inadequate dwellings.

However, sub-urbanization and the few public housing units built in the 1950s to early 1960s did not solve Canadas housing crisis. In 1968, former member of parliament Paul Hellyers task force on housing travelled across Canada collecting data on low-income families facing inadequate housing. Rather than improving public housing, former prime minister Pierre Trudeau subsidized home ownership.

With mortgage rates skyrocketing during the early 1980s recession, the federal government once again intervened to reduce mortgage rates in hopes of ensuring people could afford to buy.

A similar government intervention occurred after the 2008 stock market crash. The federal government defaulted to encouraging home ownership rather than exploring subsidizing and constructing a range of housing options that would ensure all citizens have adequate shelter to meet their individual needs.

Read more: Canada's housing crisis needs answers but first we need to ask the right questions

Federal subsidies supporting home ownership have shown to be an ineffective strategy to ensure housing is safe, stable and affordable for all members of society. Each time the federal government has subsidized home ownership, access to stable and secure shelter becomes more difficult for a larger number of citizens.

As a society we need to examine our symbols and values attached to housing. The dream of home ownership has been a tool of dispossession and exclusion and has perpetuated the commodification of housing.

We dont need federal subsidies to buy a home. A new national narrative needs to emerge that provides access to safe, secure and affordable housing to all, regardless of income.

See the rest here:

'Home sweet home' is a dying dream: Federal election promises won't solve affordable housing crisis - The Conversation CA

Thursday night, the leaders of Canadas five major political parties will take the stage at the Canadian Museum of History, a space heavy with the burden of colonialism. After doing so, they will participate in a land acknowledgment, an important rite of recognition that they honour the land we call home and thank the First Peoples who welcomed them.

Land acknowledgements have become an essential ritual in Canada, and done right, they are a vital step in the process of reconciliation. They help to reframe the discussion to one where we share commonality and a commitment to this place we call Canada. But like the countless commemorations of Indigenous peoples across the museum itself, tonights acknowledgment is simply words and without action, not worth very much at all.

The debate is a crucial opportunity for Canadian political leaders to commit to real change toward a fair, inclusive and responsive approach to the vital issues of our time. While reconciliation is simply one of five themes to be debated, it is one that requires immediate action and has an important impact on all our futures.

Reconciliation cannot take place without language rooted in action, authenticity, shared prosperity and abundance. Federal leaders have an important role in changing the narrative, but it will take much more than words.

In recent years, it has become clear that Canadians and First Nations, Mtis and Inuit peoples alike, want political parties to stop talking and take meaningful action in Indigenous reconciliation. Recent polling conducted by Discover reveals that 73 per cent of Canadians believe we have to stop the empty gestures and enact concrete policy to help Indigenous people. Again, language matters and while this figure is telling, we must move past the language of help and toward a movement that builds meaningful relationships. Federal leaders have an important role to play in this work.

While the Liberal government sees its performance on Indigenous issues as a strength, only 6 per cent of Canadians feel the Trudeau government has done a very good job on these issues, while 35 per cent feel Jagmeet Singh would do a better job.

Whats more, Canadians now care seriously about Indigenous issues and the progress of reconciliation. Just last week, Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister became the first Canadian leader to resign (at least in part) due to the fallout of his governments racism toward Indigenous peoples. Earlier this year, Sen. Lynn Beyaks despicable stance on residential schools saw her pressured out of the red chamber after years of spitting vitriol.

In short, Justin Trudeau is vulnerable on a theme that is very important to Canadians in this election and the electorate is paying attention.

So, beyond the land acknowledgment, what do Indigenous peoples and Canadians want to see from the federal political parties? As a starting point, 75 per cent of Canadians want the federal government to take responsibility for their role in residential schools. The debate offers a perfect opportunity for each of the party leaders to reaffirm that responsibility.

In addition, there are a few vital questions that Canadians deserve to have answered in tonights debate. Just a few that spring to mind include the following:

I would love to hear their answers but ultimately like most Canadians I am weary of words and believe it is high time for action. We have all waited long enough.

Karen MacKenzie is a proud CreeMtis woman, a consultant and a member of the expert panel of the Canadian Centre for the Purpose of the Corporation.

Original post:

Debate best chance to challenge leaders on actions they will take toward Indigenous reconciliation - Toronto Star