Skip Navigation

Posts
1
Comments
260
Joined
11 mo. ago

  • No representation from labour? Did you miss the Senior Research Officer from CUPE?

    Also, there is the Founding Director of the Center for Media, Technology and Democracy.

    Your critique isn't totally unfair, but there is a lot of academia on the panel. It's not just industry, but it's not a group representative of all sectors that stand to be affected. There are definitely people I would also like to see on there who aren't part of it, especially on education. It's a task force and an initiative that is aligned with an already determined strategic mandate to achieve AI sovereignty, and to shape whatever that ultimately means. It is taking for granted that AI is going to be part of Canada's future in a big way. It is approached like a response to an arms race and how to keep up as best we can, not a fact finding mission. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable, as long as we have accountability on legislation that shapes what actually goes from strategy into budget and implementation, also via things like the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act that addresses the governance side. This group isn't governance, but strategy.

    I also disagree the only use case is surveillance. That's also fear mongering, but it is definitely one of the concerning use cases. There are many concerning use cases. This is where we need other civil society pressure and accountability in parliament and the governance side to provide oversight and regulation.

    It's not perfect, but it's not as terrifying as the Tyee article makes it out.

  • It's really not nearly as straightforward as that. The wine industry in BC is made up of many smaller wine producers, all dealing with a lot of uncertainty over the last couple of years. They make different styles with different grape varietals and all have to plan ahead and do their best while dealing with both market change and climate change, not even being sure which varietals will be viable in the province as the climate changes. Also, farming fruit is just subject to a lot of unpredictability. Can you predict the weather? Nobody knew winter 2024 would be so cold and kill so many vines. Nobody knew summer 2025 would be a great growing season. People running businesses still had to plan ahead and sign contracts, and wineries can't just elastically expand production without expanding plants through large and long-term capital investments. Most couldn't even afford to do that anyway. Also, for places that lost their vines entirely, they can't just have new vines producing grapes the next year. Plants take time to grow. Many vineyards also resorted to trying things to save their vineyards that were totally experimental and nobody knew for sure how they would work out. It's just a lot more complex than you're recognizing, and if the winter is brutal again in 2026 or there is a terrible summer growing season that follows, the program might need to be preserved. It needs better administration to avoid problems like the current one, but it's a result of nature's chaos and uncertainty combined with less-than-perfect administration of a pretty good emergency response.

  • It's really not that simple. Grapes are not all the same and are not just interchangeable. Some vineyards that were not wiped out having a good crop this year is great, but it does not mean everyone is recovered or that the grapes they grew are workable for all wineries. It's a more complex, fragile and unpredictable industry than you are recognizing.

    It's also not really tangential. If the federal government stepped in and blocked the program, it wouldn't have just protected Canadian businesses. It would have been blocking a valuable emergency program to save Canadian businesses. You don't win a trade war by kicking the legs out from under one of your own industries when they're on the rocks.

  • The program was implemented by the province as a result of weather that absolutely devastated vineyards in the province and would have resulted in the wine industry also being devastated without grapes to make wine. It was an emergency measure to save Canadian businesses. It needs better administration until vineyards are fully recovered and it can be closed, but it was an essential response to save a BC industry.

  • BC has VQA, and none of the wines being made using US-grown grapes should qualify.

    The problem is that BC vineyards faced extreme cold that killed off huge numbers of vines a couple of years back, and if importing grapes hadn't been allowed it would have devastated a bunch of wine producers who just couldn't have made wine for years as their vineyards had to be replanted and take time to produce grapes.

    The problem, as it so often is in Canada, is sensible rules on paper with absolutely shit enforcement and oversight. So, instead of ensuring that wine makers are only sourcing from the US what is not available in Canada, they have enabled them to source excess from the US and leave the BC growers stuck.

    It should be great news for the BC wine industry that there is a good harvest this year after utter devastation last year, and if they make adjustments and start ensuring that only grapes to meet demand beyond local supply are purchased, it will be good news in future. It's just really dumb right now.

    It takes three seasons for new vines to produce wine grapes, so there should be no need for the province's exemptions on US grapes at all after a one more season. Hopefully they deal with this properly.

  • Kind of wish that were true.

  • I was sad to see Peter Bros. Construction in BC recently got sold to a Blackrock-owned multinational that was found guilty of using forced labour in Qatar not long ago too.

  • They didn't write the bills.

  • You think our elected officials are eco-terrorists?

  • Yep. Scotty Sockpuppet doing his thing. Next step, accusations of "whataboutism."

  • Yep. This is substantial and concerning. Reminds me of the US after 9/11. Reality is, as much as Carney is working to diversify trade, we've only been deepening out integration with the US on continental security. Not good.

  • You can just read the bills then.

  • When an article starts off with a fabrication like this:

    Chinese leaders have given a deadline of 2027 to unify China and Taiwan.

    You know it's not a serious piece worth reading.

    Either the author is purposely perpetuating a falsehood, or they don't know what they're talking about.

  • Do we get it back if Alberta secedes?

  • Hard not to like seeing a person who just obviously loves their job.

  • The UK caved to the US basically immediately. Hardly a reliable ally in this. They picked the US as besties over us, which should not really surprise. The financial ties of London and New York are stronger and far more alive in 2025 than the old Commonwealth ties of Canada and the UK, not to mention their security and intelligence ties.

  • That was a very interesting article. I didn't see any link to the report it's mostly based on. Would love to read it, especially as the authors have very legit credentials. Framing an intentional race-based investment strategy using a "race discount" and a "race bonus" is pretty powerful stuff.

  • The US has no true allies.

  • The advert is literally just Reagan's voice from an address he gave against tariffs along with stock video of people and places. That's it.