Interested to know when the got the PL VAR officials ruling on police video evidence. We looked at the footage, there was no knee on the neck. Beg pardon? Which footage?

Regarding the designation of “intelligence chief” there may be no error. The RCMP runs an internal program called CIP or Criminal Intelligence Program. It’s purpose is to collate, analyze, prioritize, and action information gathered across the country related to criminal investigation and activity. This type of setup is necessary to coordinate enforcement between regions and local jurisdictions. The FBI and Scotland Yard are similar in role. It doesn’t say specifically but I’m thinking this would be where this guy was located.

Deep defense cuts, now? That’s certainly one way to approach a destabilising great power neighbour, a new cold war, and an ongoing peer conflict in Ukraine.

What I generally got from their policy is that, while it qualifies objectively as terrorism, they do not decide that internally. They communicate the label as assigned by governments and other authorities. It’s a very reasoned policy as journalists can quickly become editorialists if they start inserting their own conclusions.

I don’t think the opinion that the Hamas attack was an act of terror has been obfuscated at all.

I always thought it had more to do with how the center/left are concerned about policy content and how it will affect systems and society, making decision making more complex and creating fragmentation. The right trends to compete by creating target groups or issues and uniting votes behind attacking them.

I’m glad to see the scenario is being planned for, but it seems like it doesn’t include credible reform around our defence budgeting and procurement. Many Canadians will say that it’s impossible for us to defeat a possible US invasion, and that’s true. The thing is, invasions often don’t happen in the first place when the cost is judged to be too high. I have been watching the developments around the possible procurement of up to twelve KSS III patrol submarines from ROK, that is exactly the type of program that has real value in deterrence. The presence of a credible attack sub fleet in the Pacific would present a risk beyond simple combat losses for the USN in a theoretical conflict, given the stand-off with China the loss of every ship would be felt in tilting geopolitical balance as well as just material and human casualty. It’s just one example, but I would love to see a clearer plan for the military and it’s mission going forward.

On a side note, I would be interested to hear what Canadians think of continuing to have no nuclear deterrent. The aforementioned KSS III submarine can carry ballistic missiles, 10x VLS on the block 3 I believe. Another option may be something akin to the French ASMP system, or even free fall bombs compatible with the F-35 platform. The Canadian military did operate nuclear weapons in the early cold war, but has not had any in commission for decades. It is an interesting hypothetical to look at a pact of, for example, Canada, Japan, and ROK (lots of political difficulties between Japan and ROK I know) coming together to quickly build and deploy a second strike capability. I have thought about our stance on nuclear arms quite a bit having seen the damage being inflicted on Ukraine. I think if a referendum were to be held I would probably vote to acquire them, I wonder how others feel.

I’d say defense is looking like something that needs some real investment in the coming decade was well.

The concern is based on industry trends, it would definitely worry me seeing language that vague that can be used to trim the work force.

Well, we could certainly find out with a 3 minute search. Here’s a good summary, four year report on Syrian refugee outcomes.

You are correct, and my comment was dismissive. My issue, or maybe frustration is a better term, is that we are worrying about the potential future impact that the use of effective cluster munitions may have after the end of hostilities. This is a reasonable concern, but the genocide is a very pressing concern. It is extremely unlikely that the number of affected children who may theoretically suffer injury or death due to these weapons, can possibly match the number who are dying or being forcibly deported weekly in this conflict.

Cluster munitions are an effective way to improve the kill and disable rate of Russian soldiers, and do so more efficiently with less barrels and rounds fired. Since destroying the Russian military as a combat ready force is the only way to end the war, it just makes sense in the cost benefit calculation to accept a theoretical future risk in addressing an immediate existential situation.

So yes, there’s a story, I just don’t agree with my government creating diplomatic heat around vital weapon supplies.

There is no controversy. Canada is not providing the weapons. The US and Ukraine are not signatory to the ban. Story doesn’t exist. Sigh