ValueSubtracted

As much as I love the Arrow, I think there's a case for the cancellation - the tide was starting to turn against dedicated interceptors, as the article notes.

But there's no excuse at all for the absolute gutting of the domestic industry that followed.

I’m NOT a defense analyst, professional or amateur.

Me neither, not by a long shot. From the various analyses I've consumed over the last few months, the suggestion is that the F35 is superior if you're attacking another country, but the Gripens just might have the edge defensively.

Our airstrips, maintenance facilities, fuel depots, all of it would be targeted and destroyed first.

This arguably gives the Gripen an edge, since its most famous feature is that it can be deployed relatively easily from highways and other non-standard surfaces.

But yeah, if you set aside the issue of American relations, there are some pretty big questions of doctrine to sort out.

Bit of a mixed bag.

reduce duplicative work

Never a bad thing.

and operative costs

Red flag when you're not also talking about the efficiency and quality of the work being done.

strengthen digital sovereignty and security

I don't think anyone's going to argue with that.

That's the Canadian National Vimy Memorial in France.

Well, it's not just the portrait.

Two of many good questions.

I assume this is primarily for the GTA commuter rail where that's less(?) of an issue.

But in any case, the VIA rolling stock is pretty old, AFAIK.

Long-term commitment is definitely a concern, especially if/when there's a change in government.

I also think they'll eventually run into a housing supply issue - at some point, they'll run out of buildings to rehabilitate and have to rely on new builds.

So what did you think about the parts of the article which described what they are doing to address those very challenges?

Anti-immigrant rhetoric is a pretty mainstream position nationwide at this point.

Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

CBC:

The Criminal Code defines treason primarily as the use of force to overthrow the government or sharing with another state information that may be used for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada.

Seems pretty much the same?

Often themselves. The focus of the article is overwhelmingly on children who were injured in without the involvement of another vehicle.