500channelsurfer

I see Milliard and PSSP being very business and economy-oriented, respectively. So Quebecers have a choice of four right-wing parties, and QS who are quite, arguably extreme, leftist. Personality of leader remains the major deciding factor, with even a majority PQ win not foreshadowing stronger support for seperatism.

I wonder why he did not cross over to the Greens or NDP. They seem more aligned to him than anyone else at the moment. It certainly speaks to Canadian political culture when crossing the floor is only ever one way. Sad day.

It is unacceptable that this company insists on going on unreformed, while being guaranteed funding through taxpayer-funded subsidy. As mail volumes decline, Canada Post needs to expand its services, which necessarily will be via its outlets, everything from secure package delivery holding (avoid porch poaching), recharge and re-battery your cellphone, recharge your electric car, pick up your grocery basket, pay your public utilities (gas, taxes, telecom, electric bill), help Revenue Canada by being a service outlet for them too, combine with recycling centres for people to drop off their cans, bottles and valuable used and recycleable metals, identity confirmation and photo for your driver's license and passport, service Canada Savings Bonds, etc. There is no shortage of employment nor services to provide. Mail should be delivered 2-3 times per week instead of coming every day to new, large, inconvenient and ugly community mailboxes that people will only access 2-3 times per week anyway. Employees can be re-assigned to outlets from redundant door-to-door assignment. There are many communities in Canada that lack banking, big box stores large grocery stores, Costco, etc. but they all have a Canada Post outlet. This is a valuable go-between that is not being utilized. I don't understand how this has not been brough to Parliament for consideration even if through private member's bill. Current administrations have been both unimaginative and dogmatic regarding this company.

Avi Lewis is dangerous because a major plank of his is to reduce military spending. His camp's confidence in respect for international law is jaw-droppingly naive. Think of this policy being projected to leaders like Trump, Putin and Jinping.

Poilievre has now decided to campaign actively against this train. The cost/benefit analysis estimates have become unfavourable. The costs and expropriations have grown too big. In typical Poilievre fashion, no specific policy alternative is deployed. Why is there no simple proposal to allow Via (or whatever passenger train provider) to get dedicated normal rail lines along this corridor, that could be run parallel to existing lines? There are a few some that may always prefer to fly for the speed, some that will always have a low maximum ticket price, and some that will prefer to drive unless the train is reliable and reasonably quick (= not slower than driving the car). A normal speed dedicated line for passenger rail is almost as good for connectivity and national unity as the high-speed line. The regular speed line will lose a few riders who require higher speed travel but will gain those who are simply seeking reliability and affordability. I think it would be so obvious that a compromise like this is the path to success.

Nuclear waste has to be buried extremely deeply in bedrock or beyond, where geological movement is minimal. There is a danger that governments could cheap out in its disposal. This is why international organizations and agreements on nuclear are important. They help spread information about nuclear and allow countries or blocks to pressure countries that are into nuclear in a dangerous way, to better handle their nuclear. Nuclear is still currently our best option (least of evils). Remember that manufacturing of solar components requires fossil resources, and that solar cannot provide enough power to fully fulfill electric grid requirements reliably. Solar is an excellent supplementary energy source, but might not be appropriate for primary.

Yes, I agree 100%. USA has gone into ME countries, sometimes staying for much shorter than expected and not changing regime; and then other times USA goes in and stays for far too long, and after or as they leave the regime reverts back or similar. When weakening the current regime, pockets of resistance or opposition can become problematic in more ways than one. Yes, agree 100%

Regime change in Iran is a best case scenario. It makes the world safer. These other countries like China and Russia are not interested in a direct military conflict involving the US in a Proxy type war/Cold War style conflict, especially when Iran is letting pass certain select oil vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. Remember the first war against Iraq, where the US left Iraq severely weakened but not regime-changed? Then they returned a decade later and finally did the regime change. A severely weakened version of the Iranian regime of last month is still an improvement for the West. Maybe a more pro-war president soon after Trump will go and "finish the job" as Bush Jr did in Iraq. A severely weakened version of the Iranian regime of last month is still an improvement for the ME as there will be less meddling by them in neighbouring countries' affairs. They will have less ability to fund foreign groups and manufacture weapons for other regimes "friendly" to them.

Did they just forget to plan for the security of the Strait of Hormuz?

Yes, absolutely Japan was faced with annihilation. There was ongoing threat of annihilation because the USA was firebombing their cities. The nukes were just bigger bombs, and a step up in the same strategy and campaign. The new threat was the Soviet boots on the ground in Manchuria. I don't know if the USA would have also firebombed or dropped nukes on Manchuria, but that is where a large part of the Japanese military was stationed. By attacking Manchuria, the Soviets, with their boots on the ground, showed that Japan had no place to hide. It was also the beginning of two-front war for Japan. The double threat is what defeated Japan, neither alone had the same immediate impact. Coming back to the purpose of this thread: US strategic bombing of Iran may require an additional element such as blockade, ground forces, internal threat, or other, in order to regime change.

In WW2, the Soviets and Americans were allies. The Soviets were the boots on the ground when they conquered Manchuria and pushed out the Japanese. To a lesser extent, so were British operations in Southeast Asia. The nukes are historically overstated. The Americans did more damage conventionally bombing in the lead-up to the nukes than the two nukes did. Japan was already well on the road to surrender before the nukes. I don't see how an A-bomb is advantageous over conventional weapons against Iran.

I don't think this is what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe they are doing better this time?

There will be fewer traffic accidents and suicide attempts with DST eliminated.

Also very important to note that all the oil and weapons help that the Iranian regime has been providing to other more rogue states is likely to stop. The world will be much safer now that that regime will no longer be a nuclear or potential nuclear threat. The main danger during this war, special military operation, regime change, or whatever you want to call it, is that the rule of law is likely to temporarily collapse in the far regions of Iran. This is where vacuums form that attract extremists and extremist groups. This is where [lack of] planning by Trump and Israel may lead to trouble.

So you agree with me then, that there is some flaw with Canada, that we are not as good in business as others? This should be fixed. We already have a very low corporate tax rate compared to other first world countries. Do we foster a culture within our educational and political institutions that encourages subservient employment over innovation and initiative? Are Canadian too risk-averse to invest in domestic startups and growth maybe due to some confounding factor such as the cold or the large geography? There are some that would argue that Canada has too much government red tape. This could be not more than a minor factor: Canada used to be a wealthier and more innovative country while we depended upon Crown Corporations for much of our innovation and wealth.

Yes, this is part of my point. We have universities in Canada where there are business and economics departments. One would think they would be teaching future business leaders how to analyze and adapt to the times, and ensure their businesses remain successful. Businesses have boards, stockholders, etc. that are supposed to act in the best interest of the business. If the President or CEO is not performing, they can be replaced or consultants brought in to fix problems. There is a pervasive attitude/mindset that seems more prevalent in Canada that is bad for business. Canada is not the only geographic region with a disperse population where businesses operate. There are ways to be successful.

Trump has recently rallied against windmills. Yet he has not provided a proposal for an alternative electricity production method to produce the quantity of electricity these proposed windmills would produce. Electricity demand is forecast to increase. Therefore electricity generation facilities will have to be built. Whether or not one believes in global warming, coal and fossil fuel-generated electricity is polluting. If you go near any coal or fossil fuel power plant, the smoke irritates lungs, produces sediment in the air, is polluting. Air pollution is not good. Renewables such as windmills have their downsides. Windmills are indeed ugly as Trump says. They kill birds. Solar panels can be installed on roofs and have fewer drawbacks, but do of course include the drawback of being unreliable as they are dependent on the weather and time of day. Hydro power has the most positives but also drawbacks such as flooding land and being available only where powerful rivers can be dammed. Nuclear (fission) power may be the best option where renewables are not accepted or less feasible. When designed and maintained properly, a nuclear plant is very efficient and produces very little pollution. The issue of handling nuclear waste requires strong government regulation to ensure it does not contaminate productive areas where future generations will live and farm. Are governments trustworthy of properly disposing of nuclear waste? Are large investments in nuclear fusion research worthy, as this form of electricity production is unproven as viable? Would these funds be better put to use by retooling buildings and homes with better insulation, heat pumps and solar panels to reduce energy demand?

Is it possible the Carney Liberals are seeking trade deals to maintain port capacities at or near their limits due to expected decrease of their use in trade with the US?

History teaches us that unipolar and bi-polar worlds are stable. Tri-polar worlds are inherently unstable and quickly lead to unipolar and bi-polar worlds (examples: World War 1, World War 2). Currently, we are closer to a bipolar world than a tripolar world. Russia has not the navy nor the air force to expand rapidly and largely, geographically. They have been pushing into Ukraine for years and have not secured victory, with that war 's emphasis on their their military's strength: their ground forces. Ukraine has been fighting back with second rate and previous-generation NATO technology and supplies principally. Russia is a regional power, not a world power. Russia can threaten the world with its nukes and hypersonic capabilities, but does not have the military to conquer and ongoingly occupy new territories. Trump in Venezuela is merely continuing the American tradition of subduing potentially hostile regimes in Latin America.

Yes. My original post is vague and simplified. The jist of the matter is that Canada requires a new fleet of fighter jets as what we have are outdated, and purchasing anything less than the best (F35s) puts our territory at risk of incursion, whether by invasion or simply reconnaissance and/or provocation, by potentially hostile foreign powers. Looking at sophistication and expected length of lifespan of technology, the F35s have the edge. Of course we need to patrol the Arctic. The Gripens may have an edge in the cold. Any detailed examination of military history will show that logistical supply lines play a most important role in success of military deployment. Whether Canada purchases a majority of Gripens or F35s, it is necessary that we also implement the aircrafts' required supply and support lines. Canada's reputation, which I hope we all hope to uphold, is for our military to collaborate especially in peacekeeping missions which tend to be non-Arctic. Whether they are Arctic or not, we need to have the supply lines ready to deploy in Arctic as well as non-Arctic environments. If we need to commission support lines to aircraft, better they be many and close than few and far apart, so as to be adaptable to both Arctic and non-Arctic conditions. I stressed the importance of right-to-repair in my original post. To expand upon this, what is necessary is for Canada to alter the deal we currently have with the US-based supplier(s) of the F35s, to ensure a deal is reached such that both Canada and the US could survive military activity for a sustained period, with their F35s, without reliance on the other. This means controlling and being able to program and maintain our own F35s at home, with technology readily available to home-based maintenance facilities. I have Alert and Iqaluit as examples of where Canada should be showing our military presence. We need to be showing our military presence all over the Arctic, and not only via fighter jets. We also require more icebreakers, more navy docked at Arctic ports, and Navy and Coastguard vessels safeguarding Arctic passages. I am not aware of our current submarine patrol levels, but of course that is extremely important, also.

Canada must absolutely go with the F35s. As has been mentioned previously, the F35s are the best of the best. When leaders like Putin and Xi Jinping decide to infringe on our Arctic sovereignty, AND THEY WILL, we will need to scare them out and away with our capabilities. The Gripens may not be enough to do so. But they are 100% scared of F35s. We need to show them us landing F35s in Iqaluit and Alert, and show them we are there, and strong. Can a Gripen land in places like that? I doubt it. F35s can. The purpose of a fighter jet is to defend the state it belongs to. A Gripens deal may be a better for the Canadian economy, but what good is an economy if its nation-state is susceptible to invasion? With the F35s there will be no risk of that. I hope the F35s deal can be amended to allow us full right-to-repair and technological control and sovereignty over the aircraft.

This is alarming. But what are the possible solutions? Cut back on programs that Canadians are using now. Raise taxes. Refuse to increase our military spending and risk getting kicked out of NATO. Implement additional pay-per-use policies for government-run services such as tolls on roads, 911 calls and airport fees. Perhaps some of this spending will result in increased future wealth creation (hopefully sooner rather than later) down the line.

With Soraya in, and anti-cyclists in her circle, will the orange cones be quickly replaced by pro-bike activist protesters?

A major transit strike including on election day does not bode well for the incumbent party.

PSPP will have a three answer referendum question? This might be a good idea, but I have not heard it come from the PQ. Isn't the CAQ government already the culture sovereignty option? Alberta and Quebec have completely different sovereignty grievances. What would Alberta choose for its middle option?