Would be much cheaper, and faster, to bulldoze the thing and build something nice.
I'm guessing a building that age is protected by preservation laws at some level of government?
Possibly. But, in my opinion, not everything old is worth preserving at any cost.
I can entertain that argument. And I also have a reverse peeve, ie. a building that I think SHOULD be preserved gets put on the chopping block, after being deemed insufficiently old to warrant protection. That's what happened to my favorite church building, which had arguably played a significant role in the history of Edmonton's architecture, but got sold by the congregation to developers, who were legally able to tear it down because it only dated from 1972.
(Granted, if a building is clearly outside the designated time-period for preservation, it's basically a subjective question as to whether it should be preserved.)
Am I the only one who thinks it a tad ironic that after spending two world wars trying to sink German submarines, we are now buying German submarines?
Might depend how large World War II looms in one's mind. I remember in high school, joking with a friend about how, among a small number of other kids we knew who were going on international exchange trips, wasn't it sinister how they all seemed to be going to Germany or Japan. Nowadays, I can pretty much think about Germany in a contemporary context with the war being, at most, a whispered footnote far in the background(*), though I suspect the collective memory of submarine warfare in the anglosphere probably sharpens the irony a bit for those more steeped in military history.
And on the other side of the table...
Anyone's else's ad-feed bombarded the last few months by the virtues of Hanwha as vocalized by Peter Mansbridge? Google "Kim Seung Youn versus the bar-bouncers" to see why I found their sudden beatification into the Canadian public consciousness rather amusing.
(*) Imperial Japan is a somewhat different story as far as my personal awareness goes, because for the entirety of my time in Korea, disputes connected with World War II and its antecedent events were front and centre in the news, if not all the time, at least on a regular cycle.
Pipeline from Alberta to Sarnia without passing through the USA sound like a good plan for Canada. Of course Churchill also works as a replacement for BC given that there is virtually no hope of getting more oil to the Pacific.
Reading Tony Keller’s column in the Globe there appears to be a viable plan for another pipeline from Edmonton to somewhere south of Vancouver, using much of the existing Trans-Mountain right of way. The Northern Gateway route seems to be a nonstarter from BC’s point of view and I can totally see why. If we have to build more pipelines, let’s please not put them through sensitive wilderness.
Keller is skeptical about the economics of the Alberta to Ontario pipeline.
The irony of buying submarines from Germany and Norway is dripping. Ms. C. has been involved in delivering Holocaust education. Never forget.
Well, I'd say this horse left the barn quite some time ago. Canada has been in a military alliance with one or the other of the national permutations of Germany since 1955, and we fought alongside them in Afganistan for years.
Mounties now say that the Indian government played no role in the Nijjar assassination. Some Sikh activists and spokespeople not buying this exoneration, claiming it's related to Canada's pursuit of better ties with India.
As mentioned on the Alberta Separatism thread, Naheed Nenshi is gonna be running for a seat in Calgary in the next election, riding to be determined.
He has also apologized for a photo-op with the Israeli ambassador at Stampede, which I think is an encouraging sign..Don Braid, one of the Alberta dailies' last stragglers from the days of Southam, lambasted the apology as a pander to "the antisemitic fringe" of the NDP.
He died a happy man to see his son as Federal Leader.
But the corporate welfare bums reign on.
Avi was just quoted in The Guardian as calling for Carney to block the latest Thomson Reuters/ICE data-sharing agreement in the name of "Canadìan economic independence".
This is the sort of issue that can clearly distinguish genuine concern for Canadian independence from hockey nationalism and personality politics. If you're someone who's been cheering on Ford and Carney's heroic stance against the "the bullies to the south of us", but are willing to let it pass when they enable the worst aspects of that regime for purposes of economic convenience, we can probably count you in the latter camp.
(Mind you, I am giving Lewis the benefit of the doubt here, in that I'm assuming there is, as he implies, something that Carney could legally do to stop the deal from going through. I remember when Justin pushed through a morally dubious arms-deal with the Saudis he inherited from Harper, it was reported that his hands were NOT tied and there was still time to stop it from going ahead. Also remember predicting that the controversy would not lead to the emergence of any significant movement challenging Canada's economic relations with the KSA, on which I think I have been vindicated.)
Apparently, Thomson Reuters shareholders voted last month against a resolution from a BC public-sector union to scrap the ICE deal.
Correction. According to an article from Reuters itself, the union was just demanding "an assessment of the human-rights impact" of the TR-ICE business relationship. Though presumably that was in the hopes of eventually getting the whole deal scrapped.
Thinking about it some more, I'm tentatively concluding that Avi Lewis was talking out of his ass in suggesting that the Canadian government stop this deal; and that Carney can't block TR's American subsidiary from signing legally allowed contracts in the USA any more than Doug Ford could block them from paying less than Ontario's minimum wage to their janitors.
IOW the only people who can really stop this are Thomson Reuters themselves, and the only way they're likely to do that is in response to a mass boycott, including eg. all readers of the Globe And Mail canceling their subscriptions or analog purchases.
It's not unknown for Ontario Premiers to harbour grudges against Ottawa
Most famously, Mitch Hepburn vs. Mackenzie King, both Liberals, over conscription.
Mind you, that probably wasn't really Hepburn defending Ontario's material interests, just his patriotic belief that it was Canada's duty to send more troops into the war.
Just a coupla days ago, I learned that during the 1940 federal election campaign Hepburn banned a March of Time newsreel called Canada At War, because he thought it portrayed the Canadian war effort in too positive a light, thus undermining his own claims about how badly Mackenzie King was running things.
While I'm open to correction, I'm tempted to say that's a pretty unprecedented and probably unrepeated sorta move during wartime.
I'd really like to believe it, but I'm still waiting for Doug Ford to make good on his threat to shut off electricity to every hospital and amusement park in the American Great Lakes Region.
(Or whatever dark fantasies one was imagining after Ford promised us hydro warfare against the Yanks.)
The booze ban is not federal. Carney doesn't know that he has no jurisdiction.
The article's paraphrase of comments Carney made at a provincial meeting when Trump announced the recent tariffs...
Carney...said restocking American booze is ultimately a provincial decision. But he also suggested...that changes to booze bans could be part of a larger deal.
Assuming "a larger deal" means something between the provinces and maybe the feds, I guess maybe he's thinking they could sign an agreement with his support lifting all the respective provincial bans.
I'd like to see an export tax on electricity and oil/gas. Perhaps 200%. Export tax benefits Canada, as opposed to a tariff which benefits the USA (government, not the consumers).
As for the booze, I'm indifferent. I don't mind letting it back on the shelves - let people vote with their wallets.
So long Free Trade. I never thought I would see the backside of you, but here we are. It"s 8:30 and there is still no deal and at this point I do not expect one.
Though it's confusing. Did the Liberals ever withdraw their support for Keystone XL? As far as I recall(I was overseas for most of it), a good deal of the hold-up was coming from south of the border, not north, with Justin expressing disappointment that Biden was opposed.
Though it's confusing. Did the Liberals ever withdraw their support for Keystone XL? As far as I recall(I was overseas for most of it), a good deal of the hold-up was coming from south of the border, not north, with Justin expressing disappointment that Biden was opposed.
Though it's confusing. Did the Liberals ever withdraw their support for Keystone XL? As far as I recall(I was overseas for most of it), a good deal of the hold-up was coming from south of the border, not north, with Justin expressing disappointment that Biden was opposed.
That’s basically my recollection too.
So, assuming Trump is trying to imply a quid pro quo between Canada surrendering on whatever issues and getting Keystone in return, this would basically be Trump making it look like he's really barking orders to Canada on pipelines when, in fact, it was Canada who was asking for this particular pipeline in the first place.
Nice move. He can tell trump he asked the premiers to lift the ban, but unfortunately he hasn't the authority to enforce it.
It'll be interesting to see how the anti-Trump majority in each of the respective boycotting provinces responds to this. I suspect most of us are especially interested in Ford's reaction.
The booze ban was basically a reaction to Trump’s tariffs, rather than a decision that American alcohol should be unavailable in Canada world without end. It might well make sense to spend that bargaining chip here and now, bearing in mind that allowing California wine (etc.) into Canada doesn’t require anyone to buy it.
The booze ban was basically a reaction to Trump’s tariffs, rather than a decision that American alcohol should be unavailable in Canada world without end. It might well make sense to spend that bargaining chip here and now, bearing in mind that allowing California wine (etc.) into Canada doesn’t require anyone to buy it.
Plus, if Ttump reneges on his end of whatever deal, you can always put the bans back in place.
News reports I'm reading say Carney walked away after the US made last-minute changes to the deal. Am I right in assuming the Canadian public will for the most part support him?
News reports I'm reading say Carney walked away after the US made last-minute changes to the deal. Am I right in assuming the Canadian public will for the most part support him?
I am just perusing the Globe & Mail and talks seemed to tank over tarrifs on SUV's. The US Team clarified in the final hour that the tarrif relief agreed for autos did not apply to SUV's, trucks and heavy trucks and a number of Canadian plants, among them Ford Oakville and GM Oshawa are geared for SUV's and trucks.
IMO it was a bait and switch. The Trump Administration isn't serious about negotiations.
Farewell Free Trade. You join the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 in the trash bin of history.
I am just perusing the Globe & Mail and talks seemed to tank over tarrifs on SUV's. The US Team clarified in the final hour that the tarrif relief agreed for autos did not apply to SUV's, trucks and heavy trucks and a number of Canadian plants, among them Ford Oakville and GM Oshawa are geared for SUV's and trucks.
IMO it was a bait and switch. The Trump Administration isn't serious about negotiations.
Farewell Free Trade. You join the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 in the trash bin of history.
The problem is, if the tariffs remain in place long enough to prompt a southward flow of manufacturing jobs, I wouldn't expect the average American, of any political persuasion, to continue demanding their abolition, especially if they live in a region that's benefiting from the influx.
So, the question then becomes, how much pain can Canada inflict upon Americans in time to stop the migration of jobs from reaching that tipping point?
Mnaufacturing has been declining as a share of employment for decades. Companies that are here, autos aside, are here for (a) proximity to local resources and (b) an educated work force. Those who just wanted low labour costs left long ago.
The auto sector may revert to its pre-1965 form in which Canadian industry focuses on Canadian demand. This is less efficient as the Auto Pact was designed to allow North American auto manufacturers to consolidate production at a single plant which provided better value for investment. Toyota and Honda may leave Ontario too for that reason.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyyFIbaU45w
Possibly. But, in my opinion, not everything old is worth preserving at any cost.
I can entertain that argument. And I also have a reverse peeve, ie. a building that I think SHOULD be preserved gets put on the chopping block, after being deemed insufficiently old to warrant protection. That's what happened to my favorite church building, which had arguably played a significant role in the history of Edmonton's architecture, but got sold by the congregation to developers, who were legally able to tear it down because it only dated from 1972.
(Granted, if a building is clearly outside the designated time-period for preservation, it's basically a subjective question as to whether it should be preserved.)
Might depend how large World War II looms in one's mind. I remember in high school, joking with a friend about how, among a small number of other kids we knew who were going on international exchange trips, wasn't it sinister how they all seemed to be going to Germany or Japan. Nowadays, I can pretty much think about Germany in a contemporary context with the war being, at most, a whispered footnote far in the background(*), though I suspect the collective memory of submarine warfare in the anglosphere probably sharpens the irony a bit for those more steeped in military history.
And on the other side of the table...
Anyone's else's ad-feed bombarded the last few months by the virtues of Hanwha as vocalized by Peter Mansbridge? Google "Kim Seung Youn versus the bar-bouncers" to see why I found their sudden beatification into the Canadian public consciousness rather amusing.
(*) Imperial Japan is a somewhat different story as far as my personal awareness goes, because for the entirety of my time in Korea, disputes connected with World War II and its antecedent events were front and centre in the news, if not all the time, at least on a regular cycle.
Keller is skeptical about the economics of the Alberta to Ontario pipeline.
Well, I'd say this horse left the barn quite some time ago. Canada has been in a military alliance with one or the other of the national permutations of Germany since 1955, and we fought alongside them in Afganistan for years.
I mean, I still wouldn't recommend anyone planning a political career ride around on a motorcycle with a German helmet on his head.
(Oh, wait.)
He has also apologized for a photo-op with the Israeli ambassador at Stampede, which I think is an encouraging sign..Don Braid, one of the Alberta dailies' last stragglers from the days of Southam, lambasted the apology as a pander to "the antisemitic fringe" of the NDP.
Avi was just quoted in The Guardian as calling for Carney to block the latest Thomson Reuters/ICE data-sharing agreement in the name of "Canadìan economic independence".
This is the sort of issue that can clearly distinguish genuine concern for Canadian independence from hockey nationalism and personality politics. If you're someone who's been cheering on Ford and Carney's heroic stance against the "the bullies to the south of us", but are willing to let it pass when they enable the worst aspects of that regime for purposes of economic convenience, we can probably count you in the latter camp.
(Mind you, I am giving Lewis the benefit of the doubt here, in that I'm assuming there is, as he implies, something that Carney could legally do to stop the deal from going through. I remember when Justin pushed through a morally dubious arms-deal with the Saudis he inherited from Harper, it was reported that his hands were NOT tied and there was still time to stop it from going ahead. Also remember predicting that the controversy would not lead to the emergence of any significant movement challenging Canada's economic relations with the KSA, on which I think I have been vindicated.)
The resolution got 3% support. Among the shareholders voting against it were representatives of Norway's much rhapsodized sovereign wealth fund.
Correction. According to an article from Reuters itself, the union was just demanding "an assessment of the human-rights impact" of the TR-ICE business relationship. Though presumably that was in the hopes of eventually getting the whole deal scrapped.
Thinking about it some more, I'm tentatively concluding that Avi Lewis was talking out of his ass in suggesting that the Canadian government stop this deal; and that Carney can't block TR's American subsidiary from signing legally allowed contracts in the USA any more than Doug Ford could block them from paying less than Ontario's minimum wage to their janitors.
IOW the only people who can really stop this are Thomson Reuters themselves, and the only way they're likely to do that is in response to a mass boycott, including eg. all readers of the Globe And Mail canceling their subscriptions or analog purchases.
Just a coupla days ago, I learned that during the 1940 federal election campaign Hepburn banned a March of Time newsreel called Canada At War, because he thought it portrayed the Canadian war effort in too positive a light, thus undermining his own claims about how badly Mackenzie King was running things.
While I'm open to correction, I'm tempted to say that's a pretty unprecedented and probably unrepeated sorta move during wartime.
I'd really like to believe it, but I'm still waiting for Doug Ford to make good on his threat to shut off electricity to every hospital and amusement park in the American Great Lakes Region.
(Or whatever dark fantasies one was imagining after Ford promised us hydro warfare against the Yanks.)
The booze ban is not federal. Carney doesn't know that he has no jurisdiction.
The article's paraphrase of comments Carney made at a provincial meeting when Trump announced the recent tariffs...
Assuming "a larger deal" means something between the provinces and maybe the feds, I guess maybe he's thinking they could sign an agreement with his support lifting all the respective provincial bans.
I would say more like doesn't care.
You mean because he's not actually planning to do anything serious about lifting the ban?
As for the booze, I'm indifferent. I don't mind letting it back on the shelves - let people vote with their wallets.
That’s basically my recollection too.
So, assuming Trump is trying to imply a quid pro quo between Canada surrendering on whatever issues and getting Keystone in return, this would basically be Trump making it look like he's really barking orders to Canada on pipelines when, in fact, it was Canada who was asking for this particular pipeline in the first place.
It'll be interesting to see how the anti-Trump majority in each of the respective boycotting provinces responds to this. I suspect most of us are especially interested in Ford's reaction.
Plus, if Ttump reneges on his end of whatever deal, you can always put the bans back in place.
I would think so, yes.
IMO it was a bait and switch. The Trump Administration isn't serious about negotiations.
Farewell Free Trade. You join the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 in the trash bin of history.
The problem is, if the tariffs remain in place long enough to prompt a southward flow of manufacturing jobs, I wouldn't expect the average American, of any political persuasion, to continue demanding their abolition, especially if they live in a region that's benefiting from the influx.
So, the question then becomes, how much pain can Canada inflict upon Americans in time to stop the migration of jobs from reaching that tipping point?
The auto sector may revert to its pre-1965 form in which Canadian industry focuses on Canadian demand. This is less efficient as the Auto Pact was designed to allow North American auto manufacturers to consolidate production at a single plant which provided better value for investment. Toyota and Honda may leave Ontario too for that reason.