A new Angus Reid Institute poll suggests a majority of Canadians believe First Nations should be meaningfully consulted on projects deemed in the national interest, but they’re split on who should hold the deciding power.

Forty per cent of Canadians say the government and companies should retain final say, while 25 per cent say First Nations should have a veto if projects infringe on their lands.

I feel like this is an indication that 40% of Canadians haven’t really thought this through.

I’ve used it a bit. It’s fine, though these things that act through browser extensions are understandably met with skepticism. The e-transfers seem pretty useful to those who use the service.

I’m all for the Alto project being a runaway success and spurring nationwide high-speed rail development, make no mistake.

Yeah, the article doesn’t make it sound like an appealing experience.

One of these latest routes is a trip between the Calgary International Airport and Banff. While Boysan said the company targets customers from all walks of life, most passengers on this trip were backpackers in their early twenties who’d chosen the bus for one reason only.

“We’re kind of like broke college students, so we just got the cheapest thing we could,” Leo Fritsch, 18, said, adding his tickets cost about $25.

That would make sense - I was thinking there were probably some viable BC options, but I honestly never hear people talking about them.

It is, and maybe it will change some day, but there’s a reason intercity rail is concentrated almost entirely in the Toronto - Quebec City corridor - nowhere else in the country has the population density to justify it (though maybe the Calgary-Edmonton route will get to that point one day).

Outside of the major commuter routes between large cities, the demand isn’t really there.

There’s a new CBC Radio article that OP may have forgotten to link to.

It does seem like there’s not much of a use case if you don’t have the requirement to cover a large change in elevation in a relatively short distance - mountains, or to get up and over a shipping lane, or something like that. The article argues for them to be inexpensive, which…I’m sure they are, but they seem to be relatively low-capacity, and pretty limited in terms of the number of stops you could include on a route. But I’m not an expert, and maybe I’d be surprised.

Yeah, there’s a single line that says, “some independent carriers raised concerns that it would make it more difficult for them to compete against larger players,” which is vague.

What part of any of this was boys will be boys?

What part of any of this was hockey related?

Are those serious questions?

But [the case] also revealed the existence of a secret Hockey Canada fund, which the organization eventually admitted it had specifically created to pay settlements in sexual assault cases against players – apparently lifting the lid off a long-simmering culture of abuse and cover-ups extending far beyond the case at hand.

Like some other jurisdictions, Canada has protections against self-incrimination.

Any person charged with an offence has the right … not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence …

Not equipped to handle sexual assault cases. This is a very well-documented issue.

This has unfortunately been the case in sexual assault cases since…forever, really.

There are almost never any witnesses, human memory is fallible, alcohol is sometimes a factor…the justice system is not well-equipped to handle it.

Good - the original case seemed pretty straightforward.

Payroll is a large portion of any budget, and I haven’t seen any credible claims that it’s possible to cut round it, or that they’re even trying.

I don’t think it’s possible to make budget cuts that huge without cutting staff.

You’re free to give them the benefit of the doubt. The union is not obligated to, and I’m inclined to think their concerns are very valid.

I’d hardly call it “cherry picking” - “We are also committed to capping, not cutting, public service employment” is a complete statement unto itself, and constitutes an election promise. There’s no ambiguity, and there are no caveats provided.

If you want to make the argument that they intend to reduce departmental budgets by 15% without cutting staff…I’m willing to listen to it, but I don’t think it’s likely to happen. And the departments don’t appear to have been instructed to do so.

Here’s the platform.

We are also committed to capping, not cutting, public service employment. Federal workers deliver essential services to Canadians and are critical to helping Canada meet this moment of crisis. As part of our review of spending we will ensure that the size of the federal public service meets the needs of Canadians.

I don’t remember reading anything about them being “directed” to do so by the government, and even if that’s the case, that was last year, well before the election.