I think that’s the most generous interpretation of it, not that I think it will help tamp down the crazies.

The article delves into the government’s motives, and in my opinion is at least somewhat sympathetic to them.

I agree that jettisoning the consumer carbon tax may have been a necessary move to kneecap the Conservatives…but that doesn’t mean there won’t also be negative consequences to doing so.

On a similar note, the Liberals are getting loads of justified criticism for the Alberta pipeline “deal”…but few people are talking about the whole thing requiring a private company that’s willing to step up and build the thing, which…I don’t think I’d bet money on that.

All of which is to say…it’s a mess, at best. I have a bunch of conflicting thoughts and feelings about it.

Thanks for sharing - this is an excellent overview of…gestures broadly to the state of things.

For sure.

Though to give them some credit, I do think there’s a fundamental disconnect between municipal responsibilities and their ability to generate revenue, but that’s not really the issue here.

intercity HSR and robust intracity public transit are two great flavours that go great together.

What you’re forgetting is that provincial governments blaming the feds for problems in their own jurisdictions are also two great flavours that go great together.

The bill covers only outward-facing cameras, not cameras inside the cab, addressing privacy concerns raised in committee.

Here’s the bill (emphasis added).

“dashboard camera” means a recording device that is capable of continuously recording the view of the road in front of a commercial vehicle through the commercial vehicle’s front windshield at all times when the commercial vehicle is operating, and meets the following criteria:

(a) retains at least 72 hours of recording;

(b) records at a minimum video format of high-definition video at a resolution of 1080p;

© has night vision capability;

(d) records at the manufacturer’s default settings on the device’s local storage;.

…

Any recording made by a dashboard camera must be collected, used, disclosed, retained and destroyed in accordance with all applicable privacy and security requirements, including the Personal Information Protection Act.

The task force is intended to bring together different partners like RCMP detachments and chambers of commerce to help bridge gaps when it comes to municipalities offering military support.

Could they vague that up a little?

They can create whatever legal mechanism they want

Which means, by definition, there isn’t one now, which is what I said.

Maybe settle on Seal Island or in one of the other disputed border areas, just to see what happens!

oh no

Citizenship is granted to everyone born in Canada, as well as children born to Canadian parents who are born abroad. There is no real legal mechanism for revocation.

Canadian passports are issued to Canadian citizens.

This seems like a pretty valid legal question?

Legally I don’t know that we can revoke citizenship

I don’t think so - the only time citizenship can be revoked is if it was fraudulently acquired, as far as I know.

The article does a pretty good job of outlining the ways Canada could (and should, to be frank) make things difficult for a province that has declared independence, though.

I thought it was pretty clear that I do, for the reasons already stated.

we shouldn’t be doubling or tripling our military budget to satisfy Trump’s demands

I simply don’t think many people would agree that that’s the reason we’re doing it.

It’s disappointing, but at the same time I don’t have a big problem with the government stepping up subsidies for the industry.

I just wish it was a “why don’t we have both” situation.

Trump demanded increased NATO spending and the countries did it. This isn’t rocket science.

No, it’s not rocket science. Trump continually threatens to abandon NATO and its allies, so everyone else has to pick up the slack. Not because he wants it, but because it’s an absolute necessity. I really don’t see a credible argument that Canada shouldn’t be investing in defence.

MAGA is a white supremacist phrase through and through. There is no excuse for repeating it.

A defensible position to take, but I think Carney’s intent in using it is fairly clear, whether you agree with it or not.

And Carney did cancel the DST

That’s why I used it as an example. The article should have, but didn’t. There are a number of things that could legitmately be held up as examples of “appeasement,” but I don’t think the article did so.

I think the article’s “appeasement” angle is pretty bullshit.

No one in NATO is boosting military spending to appease Donald Trump - it’s the inevitable response to the realization that the largest NATO contributor is unreliable.

The recent “MAGA” line was an appeal to American investors to spend money here. It appropriated Trump’s language, but that’s the opposite of what he wants.

Carney campaigned in decreased reliance on the US, not on severing all ties.

Actual examples of appeasement would be things like ending the digital services tax, and I’m sure we’ll see more like it when the CUSMA talks get started.

I think that was just the Digital Services Tax, which applied to a lot more than just online streamers. This is related to the Online Streaming Act.

I do wonder if its increase is being set up as a bargaining chip for the CUSMA talks, though.

The deal is contingent on Hanwha winning the lucrative bid to build Canada’s next generation submarine fleet.

The Korean and German bids both look pretty strong to this dummy. I have no idea how this is going to shake out.

I read somewhere about how South Korea could really benefit from an expanded overseas manufacturing arrangement, which makes sense considering their geopolitical, uh, situation.

Oh maybe - I just gave it a passing glance and focused on

You’re not automatically a Canadian citizen if you

marry a Canadian citizen

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there’s an expedited path to residency.