I have mastered the Swindon Magic Roundabout.

I can take on anything now.

How is this different from Carney’s stated agenda?

He said he wants to increase domestic defence production, instead of purchasing from the USA. I dont see anything contrary to that in this article.

Also, there needs to be timelines associated with awarding contracts to make a link between Carney/Federal statements and how these are shaking out.

Finally, Canada is a federation, provinces still get a vote in how these things shake out; we’ve seen that before with General Dynamics / Ontario and seeling vehicles to Saudi Arabia

Its impressive that Doug made Rob seem like the good one.

Honour

1. The tram is still usable to all ages and abilities, no? So those who call 30 minutes a long journey still have the 5-10 minute journey option.

2. The tram, walking, and rolling makes it less exclusionary than a bridge only accessible by private motor vehicles.

3. The bridge may still be exclusionary, but it is ordera of magnitude less exclusionary than the previous state of affairs (only those with the physical ability to swim that far).

A private jet for Doug Ford also does not help those unable to drive or unable to afford to drive.

Ontario and Quebec, at least, already have tax exempt coloured fuel for farming. I think most provinces do.

Coloured fueling transportation is an option, but there are some second and third order effects that come to mind.

This isn’t given to everyone equally. Its given to people who drive.

Instead invest those funds in public and active transit. Things everyone can choose to use, yet are not forced to.

Arresting/detaining people is not in the mandate of Toronto special constables.

https://www.tps.ca/careers/special-constable/

So we shouldn’t buy from the states if any prison labour was involved in the supply chain?

With the benifit of hindsight, scrapping the project was a good idea. Not finding new work for the engineering and science team was not.

I’d recommend Mr. Pollievre read Jocko Willink’s Extreme Ownership.

Leaders dont blame other people. Leaders don’t cast failure on others. Leaders don’t bitch and moan and hope something gets better.

Instead of finding out why members are leaving his party (disalignment of objectives? Inability to vote off party lines? Not enough cheezies in the break room?) and doing something about it; he is bitching about a system. Now I’m not advocating for the monolithicy of systems, bad or outdated systems must change. But using a system as a sink for accountability if not leadership behaviour.

It’s not MY fault members are crossing the floor. It’s the fault of the system for letting them change.

Mr. Pollievre, if you cannot lead a party of 140 people. If you cannot reconcile how to align the objectives of 140 people. If you cannot own the concerns of 140 people. Why do you think yourself capable of leading 40,000,000 people? Why do you think you can reconcile the objectives of 40,000,000 people? How do you think you have the capacity to pwn the concerns of 40,000,000 people?

Politics and party objectives ebb and flow, I’ve voted for just about every major party by this point in my life. But shitty leaders are shitty leaders. Conservative party members deserve more of their party. The house of Commons deserves more of it’s opposition. Canadians deserve more of their politicians.

This airframe was purchased in 2022.

A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

These have been renewed in cases, but generally laws end up evolving into compliance over time.

You could repair 800 meters of gardener expressway for that!

Especially since the types of conflict mentioned are hybrid, mostly information and economic, conflicts. That to me would imply a need to spend more on information and economic conflict tools.

I fail to see the link between artic defense infrastructure and the hybrid threat we are facing.

Incorrect. The notwithstanding clause is explicitly a temporary measure related to provisions 2 and 7-15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s not some magic “I don’t like this law” button.

What the Ontario government is trying to create is a way to bypass provincial and municipal laws by designating a piece of terrain a special zone.

To use an analogy, let’s say smoking bans came in as a Charter right rather than how they did. A controversial ban at the time, but widely reflected as a good move now. The right to clean air of something. Ontario could go “Hey, we grow a lot of tobacco, and we have a rich history of blowing smoke in each other’s faces at Tim Hortons. So we’re going to enact the not withstanding clause.” That buys Ontario a couple of years to figure out how to work the ban into its existing laws and culture.

This bill would be akin to Ontario saying “Okay, I know smoking is allowed everywhere except kindergartens and hospitals. And some municipalities have also banned smoking grade schools. So we’re proposing a special bill that will allow use to declare special smoking regions, which will allow people to smoke everywhere regardless of our, or cities, regulations”

Why does no one want to work for 2-2.5 hours a day, with a 7 hour gap in the middle?

Wait until you hear how much most passenger cars drive…

I’ll ruin the suprise. It’s 380 hours per year.

1 hour run x am/pm x 5 days x 10 months; 500 hours. Already have the Canadian average beat, even before adding field trips, summer camps, and other chartered drives.

They seem upset about two requests for briefing binders.

briefing binders prepared for ministers ahead of overseas trips are excellent reference works for journalists and researchers. They often contain biographies of individuals the minister will meet with and an outline of Canada’s position on any issues likely to be discussed or raised on a trip.

This reads to me like:

Journalists don’t feel like finding information about the person’s met with themselves or using the official position of Canada used during the meeting or using the actual content of the meeting (all of which can change from the prep binder). So instead were going to rely on a leading indicator about a meeting, but use it at least 30 days after the meeting?

Am I missing something here?