Well, you know it's grade 10 civics, that's a step forward.

Suppose that means that you're purposely conflating the 2 issues just to get people agitated at the liberal government. I mean, since the provinces are predominantly *not* liberal.

Just saying.

Bye!

Yeah you can calculate that, fact remains it's a provincial issue, not federal. If the federal government stopped funding the military altogether, the money still isn't going to education.

Blame the right government. It's the only way you're going to drive change.

Education spending is constitutionally the reason of the provinces.

So what you're saying is "consider every time the federal government buys oranges, the provides buy fewer apples.'

These things are not related.

Not if the mou amounts to appeasement. "Yes Dani, good idea Dani. We can do that, Dani. Just bring us agreements from the first nations, bc, private sector investments, reduce emissions, build carbon capture, triple the carbon price, and we're in!

Oh... By July thanks!"

Doesn't it, though? And I mean... the guy worked with the CIA in Afghanistan. And instantly after the shooting, trump appeals the order to remove the NG, and locks down immigration. Moving pretty quick for not having any details on the shooting.

I honestly think leaving BC out was tactical. The agreement is meaningless if BC says no. Or if the indigenous groups say no.

That's a lot of ifs.

As of today, there are exactly zero private companies lined up to pay for a pipeline. The push is political theatre by Smith. Carney knows that, so this is more theatre. "Great, you have funding and agreements? Put them on the table."

So here's the thing... This isn't an agreement to build a pipeline.

It an agreement that, if Alberta comes up with private sector funding, agreements with indigenous groups, an agreement with BC *and* works towards net-zero by 2050, the Feds will let it go forward.

Really?

Haven't looked at the numbers, have you?

The Leafs!

Okay, I'm delusional, but that's what being a leafs fan is all about. 🤣

Sweden is offering us sovereignty over the production. They're offering to build them here, they're offering 10,000+ jobs. And they're offering to have us contributing to building jets for Ukraine.

The question is balance - do the Saab benefits outweigh the commitments we've made.

I say yes.

And we have a contact to buy 16.

All those things are facts, and pre-Trump, were reasons to move forward.

Now - costs have gone through the roof, operational and maintenance cost have too, the US government is hostile.

The reason it's a thing is that Canada has been dumping money into the program since the 90s. We paid hundreds of millions to be able to bid on development and parts contacts. Thousands of Canadians are employed by companies working on the f-35.