This came from Age of Empires, where priests could heal units by shaking incense/holy water over them, including ones that didn’t make sense like trebuchets or seige rams.

Lmao, that’s your response to not reading the article before commenting? Talk about clowns…

Why does each candidate need to represent a riding? Have the ridings each have their own representative for local issues, and then have the extra MPs represent the country as a whole.

Stop making threats against Canada’s sovereignty more clear for you?

Unfortunately it was planned long before. They started their trip I. january. Also bringing the sub over for us to look at as we’re possibly buying some. https://www.ctvnews.ca/atlantic/nova-scotia/article/french-nuclear-submarine-visiting-halifax/

The key part is the majority of ballots cast. Beyond the benefits of MMPR (of which I am fully on board for), we still had a sub 50% voter turnout. If literally half of ontarians can’t be bothered to vote, they’re agreeing to everything else. I place responsibility for trump with those who voted for him and those who didn’t vote - it’s the same in this case.

Something also not touched on in the article is the HUGE number of ukrainians we have in our country, particularly in the praries. We’re ranked in the top 3 for ukrianians/Ukraine heritage, below Ukraine and Russia.

I’d argue most Canadians are pretty pro-Ukraine, and the US wiffle-waffling on that as well stings deep.

Let me know if there’s more nuance I missed! It’s been a while since I looked into it.

I don’t think that was why - the special committee report recommended a referendum and switching to Proportional Representation.

Two parties stand to lose the most from that - Liberal and Conservative. NDP, Green, and fringe parties like PPC stand to gain the most, as do the people of Canada, IMO. Trudeau didn’t want it to go to a referendum, because the liberals would lose significant power, and likely never again become a majority party, as there is a not-insignificant portion of people who vote Liberal as an anything-but-conservative approach.

It’s still going to hurt - we import so much from the US that this is going to impact Canadians no matter what (even before price hikes in unrelated businesses starts).

I mean yeah, but Canada produces an ENORMOUS percentage of the world’s potash.

Edit: checked the numbers. Canada produced ~38% of the worlds potash (25mil lbs), while Belarus produced 5-7mil lbs, most of which already goes to China, Russia, and India. Canada exports 46% of our potash to the US, meaning the US could buy ALL of belarus’ potash and still not meet current supply.

I was hopeful when he got elected, and he fulfilled some promises, but he failed to move forward with proportional representation election overhaul, IMO a major flaw that could’ve been what he was known for in the future. He’s also had scandals like any other PM. The Me to We charity scandal (where a charity was awarded a large govt contract. The charity had previously paid Trudeau and family to appear at its events) was ultimately cleared by the ethics commissioner. His SNC lavalin scandal where he attempted to directly influence our justice minister to intervene on an ongoing criminal case, then removed her from her position when she refused. SNC lavalin was also found to have made illegal party donations, which the liberals didn’t reveal when the initially found them.

He was also the first PM in history to have been found to break the federal ethics rules by accepting a private vacation for his family from Aga Khan, breaking the conflict of interest rules.

He’s always paraded himself as very progressive, but images circulated of him wearing brown face when he was slightly younger (but definitely old enough to know better).

Finally, a ton of people who were anti-mask were fed rhetoric that it was Trudeau’s fault for the masking requirements, despite the fact that it was almost entirely Provincial restrictions. They also tried to cry overreach when Ford failed to remove the Ottawa encampment, and Trudeau enacted the emergency act to clear them, though again, reviews after the fact cleared him and agreed it was an acceptable use of the powers.

Overall, an enormous step up from Harper says of no transparency, but he didn’t quite live up to what many had hoped, and they’re angry at the current situation, and blaming him is an easy scapegoat.

My point is the “cost” you’re describing as a nice balance has been artificially deflated. Property taxes need to be ~doubled for those areas (in my province) in order to properly account for those costs.

Also this thread was initially posted in c/196, which is where I came across it.

Suburbs are not feasible, cost wise, from a municipal standpoint. They’ve been heavily subsidized by the denser parts of the municipality, and surprisingly by the rural parts too.

The cost of maintaining infrastructure in a fit state of repair (water main, sanitary sewer and treatment plants, roads, bridges, storm sewer, curbs, sidewalk, street lighting) for these semi-spread out houses is the same as maintaining it in denser areas without the benefits of the higher tax income.

Additionally, the spread out housing, at least here, has overtaken lower lying wetlands, filled in creeks, and increased water flow down the water courses that do remain, causing erosion, sedimentation, and killing off the aquatic wildlife. Ontario has just started to require Low-Impact Development, standards that require constructing artificial wetlands, soak away pits, raingardens, green roofs, or similar measures to reduce water flow off site and encourage aquifer refilling. These all cost extra money above and beyond what the cost of repair has been up to now.

I work as a consultant designing infrastructure repair and rehabilitation for municipalities, and have seen the cost of these projects. For most of them, it’s the equivalent of their property tax for ~40yrs, and typically has a lifespan of 50-75yrs on the high end.

Suburbs are being subsidized through grants provided by our Federal or Provincial government, which is funded through other taxes.

Very much a stretch, as nothing has happened yet, but according only to the letter of the law, he could fall under the definition of Treason,

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, … © conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

And high treason is defined as:

46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

… (b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(Emphasis mine).

If you really wanted to make the case, Trump’s talking about levying war against Canada would be classified as high treason (if he were Canadian).

Literally any communication between Trump and Musk about invading or taking over Canada could be construed as treason. I have a hard time believing they *haven’t * talked about it.

To be clear, you think there would be an actual war with any safe space to store prisoners? The US would roll over Canada’s military in any open conflict, and crush any official bases. Any war would be entirely guerilla warfare, in which case taking prisoners is entirely unrealistic

I mean it’s a bit on the nose even for Trump - “you’re in danger, from us, so we’re going to invade you so we won’t threaten you anymore”.

Beyond that it doesn’t matter what we do as a country for military funding/improvements. If the US wants to invade, they will. It’s literally impossible for a Country 1/10th the size to defend and win an outright fight. It’s the occupation/pacification/integration bit that Canada would fight back on with guerilla warfare and have a chance of keeping them out, but that has nothing to do with military funding/spending

I mean yes, but what are we in danger of? One main reason we’ve dropped our military numbers, as far as I understand it, is that we don’t have any serious enemies that are close to home. Russia invading over the artic has been the only “close” enemy, and even then it’s been totally unrealistic for that to occur.

I always appreciate the summarizing articles like this close to elections. Ford in particular plows through scandals like no tomorrow in his first two years, then slows his jets and just putters along near the election, hoping people forget

Sure, sounds great. But it’s the same problem that applies to everyone - all you can do is reduce your own impact and hope they do the same.

The article seems to be basically just complaining about China not doing enough, while not proposing any measures to encourage China to reduce their impact, while also failing to note that the manufacturing China is taking produces resources and goods FOR the west. If we don’t want to give them our manufacturing jobs, then pass legislation forcing more manufacturing to be done in your own country.

Just saying “no, we should burn fossil fuels because otherwise it’s not fair” is a bunch of bullshit.