jrobson.bsky.social
Assoc. Prof. MPM @Carleton; parent; gardener & sometime tradesperson; social & tax policy; worried about details
1,228 posts
4,706 followers
879 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
The map has been online for many years, before AI. I’d encourage you to contact the creators of the map : www.whose.land/en/contact
comment in response to
post
Of course there’s a dashboard! :)
comment in response to
post
Oh dear…
According to the current dashboard, 51% chance it’ll be within a year.
www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/remuneration...
comment in response to
post
20m past the merge, everyone finds their freedom again with the pedal closer to the floor. Signalling lane changes is optional.
comment in response to
post
I think @althiaraj.bsky.social raises some excellent questions about the process & scrutiny of the bill. I guess my main point is that parts of the bill may not hang together and may not work out in practice, even if you accepted its goals.
comment in response to
post
side by side, but I’d be surprised if there wasn’t some error of omission in the smaller part 2 list.
Ok, it’s late. I read proposed federal legislation (and you did too if you followed this thread), and now I need sleep.
comment in response to
post
1) Indian Act is on the list. I’m not sure how you reconcile a claim that s.35 rights will be respected at all stages with ‘we might ignore Indian Act’.
2) Statutes on the list in Part 1 don’t all have regulatory exemptions in Part 2 of the same schedule. I don’t have bandwidth to do a…
comment in response to
post
why can’t they manage this? I’m not clear.
Again, I’m skipping some stuff for time, but here are the crucial schedules, the Statutes that Cabinet can chose to set aside for designated projects, either in legislative requirements or regulatory requirements.
I can’t help but notice…
comment in response to
post
Presumably, proponents are applying to usual suspects under usual processes, but somehow, someone IDs their project as maybe eligible for special C-5 status. Then a Minister gets named as point. Then the bill kicks in and they get help in a new office. But, who has already ID’d the project &..
comment in response to
post
designated by Cabinet for any particular project.
This is a bit weird. Cabinet decides which Minister is designated to review & advise Cabinet on an application for a project where this act may apply. The Minister can have staff to help coordinate that. But, where does the proponent apply to start?
comment in response to
post
There’s a series of sections relating to specific fed/prov deals on natural resources, plus nuclear, energy regulation and Impact Assessment. Skipping for time… Sorry.
The bill also suggests one or more new federal offices can be created, reporting to the Ministers…
comment in response to
post
or why. I’m not sure this move is “certainty” or “investor confidence” building unless you have already let it be known, as a government that you plan to say yes. And that could be hard to square with duty to consult (s.35 rights) and P/T rights.
comment in response to
post
The feds have to issue an authorization to a proponent of a successfully designated project, but it is up to the Minister (TBD who, on project by project basis) to decide how to make that document public.
But Minister can also unilaterally amend that approval document. No limits on when, where..
comment in response to
post
A private “proponent” of an eligible project isn’t totally exculpated from any obligation, but it’s a bit vague, tbh, relative to the bill’s power to designate federal requirements that a project is exempted from. This puts a lot of trust that the right federal rules will be listed or not.
comment in response to
post
the Canada Gazette.
Yersh. This is “we decide, we’ll tell you later”. Does this fit with Duty to Consult?
comment in response to
post
Next thing: Statutory Instruments Act doesn’t apply. That means regulatory changes would not have to follow usual regulatory process.
www.justice.gc.ca/eng/laws-loi...
Instead, Cabinet decisions (to add, amend or remove) special status of projects, has to be published, after the fact, in..
comment in response to
post
government approach to consulting, including consultation protocols signed with FNs.
www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/13318325...
Will this bill respect those? Is the language in this bill consistent with s.35 case law?
comment in response to
post
Consultation is a “must”. It includes P/Ts and Indigenous peoples under s.35, but it implies the federal government will unilaterally determine which peoples, the methods, timelines and substance of the consultations. But, outside of this bill, the feds had been working towards a whole of…
comment in response to
post
The bill sets out the policy aims or criteria for deciding what’s “national interest” but note these are suggestions, Cabinet ‘may’ but not must consider these things. These are also not objectively verifiable criteria. These are judgement calls. They will be made by Cabinet, on confidential advice.
comment in response to
post
…there is an opening.
The main mechanism in the bill, is to have Cabinet add (amend or delete) projects from a special list created by the bill. Projects on a list are granted special status. More on that in a moment.
Notable: No projects can be added after 5th anniversary of coming into force.
comment in response to
post
Those look a bit like “Bowl of Beauty”. Looks like a very sunny spot where they’d be very happy & earlier than mine.
comment in response to
post
It’s a plain white. I’ve lost the tag ages ago. Great scent. Good flower. White without striation. I’m a fan.
comment in response to
post
Yellow aquiligia! So beautiful!
And lovely allium.
The squirrel is cute but we have beef.
comment in response to
post
And a few more
comment in response to
post
Meconopsis Betonicifolia
AKA: Himalayan Blue Poppy
comment in response to
post
I definitely think most NATO countries should spend more as Russia and China are increasingly aggressive & the invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated that most are short in quantity of stuff and in drones/counter-drones, air defence, etc.
But more money does not mean more capability unless well spent
comment in response to
post
The link I included has the authorities, the actuals and the projected. Here it is again. Planned spending is well below authorities.
comment in response to
post
Not disputing the % of GDP but was pointing to this line in the article:
Public Accounts of Canada has DND spending at $33B, Veterans Affairs is at $6B and not mentioned in G&M article.
comment in response to
post
mention of training in the article. Buying new tech might require new skills. As layoffs roll through some pockets of goods manufacturing sectors, we might want to think about whether they fit into this multi billion immediate spend.
comment in response to
post
But thinking seems to be warfare is moving away from conventional. Ie: Ukrainian drone capabilities. I saw Christopher Kirchoff, (past head of US Defense Innovation Unit) making the case on CNN that US DoD spending needs of change. Wonder what balance our DND will strike.
Also didn’t see any…
comment in response to
post
been released. Today’s announcement may be what we get instead. But it might be good to think about what/where to make vs buy.
4) The mix between the conventional (ammo, armoured, etc…) vs new tech (drones, AI, compute) will be interesting. The conventional costs more but is familiar to DND. ….