Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Kirkhill]

Some really interesting current info on SMR reactors from the World Nuclear Association.

Reactors as small a 5 MWth on the books.
Westinghouse has one that requires refuelling every 8 years
Toshiba's lasts 30 years

The capital cost is projected at 3 to 8 dollars per We. So a 5 MWe plant is projected to cost 15 to 40 Million dollars. The electricity would sell at about 10 cents per kWh, so competitive with the grid.

All of them are about 30-40% efficient so for every MW of electricity the plant will also produce 2 MW of high quality heat.

Small Modular Reactors - World Nuclear Association

There is strong interest in small and simpler units for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) represent a broad suite of designs that seek to apply the principles of modularity, factory fabrication, and serial production to nuclear energy.

world-nuclear.org

 

[lenaitch]

It is.



I assume it is a given that the locals will be making the call.

They have a thousand year history of trade with the Europeans to acquire things they don't have.

Patently, currently, they want warmth, light, hot and cold running water, potable water, sewage and waste disposal, communications, computers, vehicles, doctors, peace, order and good government .... all the appurtenances of modern life. And they are coming to the realisation we value stuff that they have. A couple of big holes in the ground are worth it if it means all the stuff I listed above.

And even if the hole goes dry at least they are left with infrastructure that will improve the lives of the locals even after the mines and mills shut down.

If we value what is in the ground, or on the land, enough then we will pay to access it.

If we install a 5MWe reactor to pwer a project with a 10 year profitable life then the locals are left with another 20 plus years of useful energy and access to the outside world.

And just like in the south, they will want to be part of the decision making. The odds of a mine being developed near an existing community are likely slim, and will probably be a fly in/fly out operation. The locals will want as much economic benefit as they can garner while the tap is open.

 

[lenaitch]

Agreed. Any venture is likely to fail. Some fail faster than others. But some survive long enough for the unexpected to happen and the place takes on a life of its own.

I think the same thing would apply to a military installation.

It might be difficult to get people to relocate, but relatively easier to get people to fly in and out on two week, or even two month, cycles. A lot of Roman casters still exist even after the troops pulled out because the people that moved in to serve the troops and take advantage of the traffic they generated are still there, serving each other and the traffic on the roads that still move through their towns.

I'll go you this far. Any development sites that we establish have the potential for becoming permanent. Some may succeed. Many may fail and disappear. But some may only fall back as far as a place like Cobalt - which serves a local population of less than 1000 after being established as a boom town of 5000 in the 1920s.

I think, for a native community of 500 or so that might be considered a win.

It certainly won't be happening in Ontario since the government long ago determined that no new town sites will be approved because they are stuck maintaining services long after the reason for the town ceased. Two large remote mines that I can think of (Musslewhite and Detour) are both fly or drive in and out, even though both are on roads (ish). Lumber mills are a little different since the raw resource is drawn from a large area so haulage to a mill in an existing community is more viable.

When towns used to form, sure, there were other economic reasons for being there. People opened stores and services, maybe a miner got tired of the work and opened a fishing camp. Farming, even subsistence, depends on the land available.

FN communities are a little different since they have complete control over who lives there.

 

[lenaitch]

Some really interesting current info on SMR reactors from the World Nuclear Association.

Reactors as small a 5 MWth on the books.
Westinghouse has one that requires refuelling every 8 years
Toshiba's lasts 30 years

The capital cost is projected at 3 to 8 dollars per We. So a 5 MWe plant is projected to cost 15 to 40 Million dollars. The electricity would sell at about 10 cents per kWh, so competitive with the grid.

All of them are about 30-40% efficient so for every MW of electricity the plant will also produce 2 MW of high quality heat.

Small Modular Reactors - World Nuclear Association

There is strong interest in small and simpler units for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) represent a broad suite of designs that seek to apply the principles of modularity, factory fabrication, and serial production to nuclear energy.

world-nuclear.org

I can guarantee you that those capital costs will be much higher in the high arctic.

 

[foresterab]

So what you are saying is that nobody is willing to be a homesteader.

The Peace River district was settled by Dominion Lands Act settlers as recently as the 1930s.

I knew people that homestead still in the 1970's. No longer an option though.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I’d need to be able to actually read a bill with proposed wording for any new offence, and compare it to existing criminal offences like Intimidation and Mischief. I’m not sure there’s much problem behaviour that’s not already incidentally captured by existing offences. However, the federal government has zero ability to actually operationally direct police services. Enumerating a new and more specific offence would be a way of signaling Parliament’s intent that specific behaviour with specific motive is specifically criminalized, lest police and prosecutors be reticent to apply existing offences in unconventional situations because it feels like a stretch.

My best guess is we would see a new offence numbered 423.3, mirroring the 423.2 “Intimidation - health services” and “Obstruction or interference with access” offence created in 2021. That offence, in the context of protecting healthcare providers and facilities, both captures ‘intimidation’ more expansively but also plainly and directly criminalizes the impeding of access. the 423.2 offence was created in response to protests during the pandemic that impeded access to hospital, vaccination clinics etc. existing offences were, I guess, found to fall a bit short of need. A new offence that mirrors the ‘health services’ offences but substitutes something like ‘religious or cultural institutions or facilities’ is my best guess for what they’re considering.

Maybe the fact the government can’t tell their employees (the police) to do their jobs is the problem then. Maybe we should make a law allowing them to direct the police to do their job.

At the end of the day we have laws. If police are unwilling to enforce them maybe it’s time to get rid of those officers and replace them with people who will.

People should not be able to intimidate and block others from doing legal activities just because they are upset/protesting. Their right to protest doesn’t trump my right to freedom of mobility and life, LIBERTY, and security of the person.

 

[RangerRay]

Maybe the fact the government can’t tell their employees (the police) to do their jobs is the problem then. Maybe we should make a law allowing them to direct the police to do their job.

At the end of the day we have laws. If police are unwilling to enforce them maybe it’s time to get rid of those officers and replace them with people who will.

People should not be able to intimidate and block others from doing legal activities just because they are upset/protesting. Their right to protest doesn’t trump my right to freedom of mobility and life, LIBERTY, and security of the person.

I don’t like the idea of government telling law enforcement how to do their jobs. That leads to bad places. However, when law enforcement appear to not be enforcing the laws, it does lead to a breakdown in trust. When liberals refuse to enforce the law, the voters will elect fascists who will.

 

[YZT580]

I don’t like the idea of government telling law enforcement how to do their jobs. That leads to bad places. However, when law enforcement appear to not be enforcing the laws, it does lead to a breakdown in trust. When liberals refuse to enforce the law, the voters will elect fascists who will.

why would they change their vote. They seem to prefer the status quo. And it isn't the liberal in this case. For Toronto it is the Metropolitan who are directed by the politicians (police commissioner and the mayor's office).. The same can be said for every community on Ontario with a local constabulary. Beyond that it is the province that is allowing the breakdown in law and they are re-enforced by the judiciary who are appointed by government. So I suppose my statement is untrue. It is the liberals because they have selected the style of judiciary that we are inflicted with.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Maybe the fact the government can’t tell their employees (the police) to do their jobs is the problem then. Maybe we should make a law allowing them to direct the police to do their job.

Thing with that, though, is everybody's happy when a government they like tells cops what to do, but not so happy when a government they don't like does the same thing.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Feds order Chinese tech firm to close Canadian operations over national security

The federal government is ordering a Chinese maker of surveillance camera systems to shutter its Canadian business and leave the country over national security concerns.

www.ctvnews.ca

New gvt now taking a few things more seriously.

For every action ....

China claims Canada’s order for Hikvision closure ‘damages’ trade relations

Beijing’s remarks come after Ottawa announced it would cease all Canadian operations of the company.

www.aljazeera.com

China Protests Over Canada's Move to Shut Down Hikvision

Canada said last year it was reviewing sanctions on Chinese surveillance equipment firms after rights advocates said they aid repression in Xinjiang

www.asiafinancial.com

Hikvision Condemns Canada’s Order to Cease Operations

Chinese surveillance technology giant Hikvision has issued a strong rebuke against the Canadian government's recent order demanding that the company halt all operations in Canada within 120 days over alleged...

slguardian.org

Here's some of CHN's pro-CPC media take on this (archived link, NOT to CHN server)

More in attached text.

 

[brihard]

Maybe the fact the government can’t tell their employees (the police) to do their jobs is the problem then. Maybe we should make a law allowing them to direct the police to do their job.

Not sure you’ve thought the full implications of this through. An executive government that specifically directs particular criminal investigations and prosecutions has potential to be really, really bad.

At the end of the day we have laws. If police are unwilling to enforce them maybe it’s time to get rid of those officers and replace them with people who will.

People should not be able to intimidate and block others from doing legal activities just because they are upset/protesting. Their right to protest doesn’t trump my right to freedom of mobility and life, LIBERTY, and security of the person.

I generally agree with this, buuut… I’ll simply caution that a zero or close to zero tolerance approach against protests that transgress against some law or another can very quickly become very oppressive and ugly. Canada overall is very tolerant (I think sometimes but not always too tolerant) of disruptive protests that impede lawful access to places. The law would support a more forceful and less tolerant approach to this. The law also affords police discretion though, and by and large Canadians tend to expect a considerable amount of ‘hands off’ discretion regarding protests. I personally think that pendulum has swung too far and it needs a generally modest correction… And I say this as someone who, as you know, very much has skin in the game. How we go about that correction matters, though. If Parliament chooses to express its intent - and to modernize that - by defining some more specific and more direct offences relating to just where the lines in the same are with disruptive protests, that would offer some more clarity than we currently have.

I am absolutely bloody certain that there’s no answer to this that will have everyone or even most people happy. Public order policing always sucks.

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe the fact the government can’t tell their employees (the police) to do their jobs is the problem then. Maybe we should make a law allowing them to direct the police to do their job.

At the end of the day we have laws. If police are unwilling to enforce them maybe it’s time to get rid of those officers and replace them with people who will.

People should not be able to intimidate and block others from doing legal activities just because they are upset/protesting. Their right to protest doesn’t trump my right to freedom of mobility and life, LIBERTY, and security of the person.

I don’t like the idea of government telling law enforcement how to do their jobs. That leads to bad places. However, when law enforcement appear to not be enforcing the laws, it does lead to a breakdown in trust. When liberals refuse to enforce the law, the voters will elect fascists who will.

Maybe the government shouldn't tell the police how to do their jobs but it must be able to tell the police to do their jobs.

What is the Government?

It is the King, the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, The Chief Justice, Justice Minister/Attorney-General, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness/Solicitor-General.

The PM, elected by his riding, elected by his Party and elected by his MPs recommends the GG to the King and appoints the other three. As Jody Wilson- Raybould made clear there is a tension between making laws and enacting laws and in the Justice Minister's case the conflict of interest is very personal.

But that is why we have governments, to make those decisions. And if they don't get the balance right then we get the opportunity to turf them.

But it is incumbent on the government to act or not act.

And one of their options is to delegate their authority to the police. Or command the police. The police are a creature of the government.

 

[Brad Sallows]

People should not be able to intimidate and block others from doing legal activities just because they are upset/protesting. Their right to protest doesn’t trump my right to freedom of mobility and life, LIBERTY, and security of the person.

That is where the line between peaceful protest and civil disobedience lies.

The difficulty presented to authorities by civil disobedience has two main parts: to tolerate or not; and, to apply that equally irrespective of political flavouring.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not sure you’ve thought the full implications of this through. An executive government that specifically directs particular criminal investigations and prosecutions has potential to be really, really bad.

Agreed.

I generally agree with this, buuut… I’ll simply caution that a zero or close to zero tolerance approach against protests that transgress against some law or another can very quickly become very oppressive and ugly. Canada overall is very tolerant (I think sometimes but not always too tolerant) of disruptive protests that impede lawful access to places. The law would support a more forceful and less tolerant approach to this. The law also affords police discretion though, and by and large Canadians tend to expect a considerable amount of ‘hands off’ discretion regarding protests. I personally think that pendulum has swung too far and it needs a generally modest correction… And I say this as someone who, as you know, very much has skin in the game. How we go about that correction matters, though. If Parliament chooses to express its intent - and to modernize that - by defining some more specific and more direct offences relating to just where the lines in the same are with disruptive protests, that would offer some more clarity than we currently have.

I am absolutely bloody certain that there’s no answer to this that will have everyone or even most people happy. Public order policing always sucks.

I can only say Amen!

Gilbert and Sullivan had it right.

I think the key point though is that the discretion given to the police is at the discretion of the Crown and its government. The Emergencies Act is still trying to wrestle with the circumstances under which dictatorial powers are acceptable.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Not sure you’ve thought the full implications of this through. An executive government that specifically directs particular criminal investigations and prosecutions has potential to be really, really bad.



I generally agree with this, buuut… I’ll simply caution that a zero or close to zero tolerance approach against protests that transgress against some law or another can very quickly become very oppressive and ugly. Canada overall is very tolerant (I think sometimes but not always too tolerant) of disruptive protests that impede lawful access to places. The law would support a more forceful and less tolerant approach to this. The law also affords police discretion though, and by and large Canadians tend to expect a considerable amount of ‘hands off’ discretion regarding protests. I personally think that pendulum has swung too far and it needs a generally modest correction… And I say this as someone who, as you know, very much has skin in the game. How we go about that correction matters, though. If Parliament chooses to express its intent - and to modernize that - by defining some more specific and more direct offences relating to just where the lines in the same are with disruptive protests, that would offer some more clarity than we currently have.

I am absolutely bloody certain that there’s no answer to this that will have everyone or even most people happy. Public order policing always sucks.

The government already does this in a less direct way by creating the laws. The police are then tasked with enforcing them. Currently the police aren't which is a issue. Why shouldn't the government be able to say enforce the law? That is literally what the law exists for and it is why the police exist. It isn't interfering with charges, it isn't interfering with prosecuting, it is making sure their employees are doing their job as they are failing to act as they should.

The tolerance of poor behavior and 'protesting' has resulted in 'protesters' who do far more than they are legally allowed to do because they know there will be no consequences. People are literally trained to believe they can violate my rights and everyone else's in the name of 'protest'. Because their rights clearly matter more than ours.

Sometimes wielding a stick is necessary as it has gotten to the point where the hands off approach has just lead to a series of more and more disruptive protests (Idle no more, G7, Truckers, Palestinian, etc.). The first time we clamp down on it, it will likely be a disaster, but only by clamping down on it will it prevent the same situation in the future.

Your last sentence is 100% spot on though, no matter what happens it is never the 'right' answer.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Canadians upset Carney caved to Trump over digital services tax​

Canadians are fickle. PM Carney is just dropping his elbows a little to lure President Trump into a false sense of security.
I'm sure President Trump won't spam this new trick

 

[YZT580]

Not sure you’ve thought the full implications of this through. An executive government that specifically directs particular criminal investigations and prosecutions has potential to be really, really bad.





I am absolutely bloody certain that there’s no answer to this that will have everyone or even most people happy. Public order policing always sucks.

and the cops bloody well hate it. Regardless of what actions they take or don't take someone is going to go on their favourite web site and complain loudly and, generally profanely with a carefully edited video to illustrate how wrong the police were. Those photos of armoured and visored police swinging their billy clubs are hard to refute as they seldom show the rocks and excrement that preceded. Paid agitators are hard to catch and harder to prosecute.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Canadians upset Carney caved to Trump over digital services tax​

Canadians are fickle. PM Carney is just dropping his elbows a little to lure President Trump into a false sense of security.
I'm sure President Trump won't spam this new trick

Politically, a bit of a "can't win."

Make concessions to move forward, and you get either "go along to get along in the long run" vs. "fucker's spineless."

Stand your ground and get bullied harder, and you get "fuck that other guy - we can take what he throws at us" vs. "saving face at the cost of the electorate."

As others have said, a Red or Blue PM would be getting battered about at this point, with only small differences in response/nuance/narrative.

 

[brihard]

Politically, a bit of a "can't win."

Make concessions to move forward, and you get either "go along to get along in the long run" vs. "fucker's spineless."

Stand your ground and get bullied harder, and you get "fuck that other guy - we can take what he throws at us" vs. "saving face at the cost of the electorate."

As others have said, a Red or Blue PM would be getting battered about at this point, with only small differences in response/nuance/narrative.

Sometimes there’s simply an undeniable power imbalance, and the overall decision has to be made on the best overall economic way forward. The DST was legislated some time ago, this issue was inevitably coming at us. It’ll now be part and parcel of everything else on the table. When that law was passed, nobody expected CUSMA to be getting dangled over the bridge railing. I don’t like seeing our hand forced in this way, but the other guy gets a vote.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Politically, a bit of a "can't win."

Agree 100%, the PM made the only call he could.

It also succeeds in grounding the cult of carney a little, which is beneficial.

Ironically this kind of pragmatic approach to dealing with Trump is what the LPC used so effectivly against Poilievre in the election.