As I noted in my initial response: the article has links in it.

Anyway putting all that aside, I’d be interested to know what you think we should do regarding the F-35s. Would you be upset if Carney went ahead with the purchase?

https://archive.is/At2nT

Yep that was indeed the election promise!

But that was then, this is now, and despite that promise, Carney is instead looking to cut the CBC’s budget by $198m.

Here it is in the Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/suggest-your-own-spending-cuts-carney-government-tells-cbc-via-rail-and-other-crown-corporations/article_1bb3283e-a3a1-4a5d-bc6e-3405f7b37231.html

Edit: archive version https://archive.is/At2nT

To everyone grateful to the CBC for this reporting, as well as rightly concerned about US & corporate/billionaire ownership of our media oligopoly:

please send a letter to our PM and tell him not to proceed with his plan to cut funding for the CBC.

I’m not going to address every part of your response because frankly I do not have the time to spend on debunking everything you’ve said here.

But yes, that sentence you quote was indeed why I suggested that another editing pass would have been good, but you’ve also taken it out of context; the previous sentence mentioned the U.S., so the author clearly was trying to not repeat the same country name.

Anyway the point is that this article is not merely a rephrasing of another one, and does in fact add additional context. I don’t like PostMedia either, but this thought-terminating cliche of blanket mistrust is ridiculous. Grain of salt, absolutely. But I rarely hear people complain when an article aligns with their existing political bias.

The Reuters story was actually posted a couple days ago (by me, in fact!) and as far as I remember, it didn’t include the additional context of other countries rejecting the deals, or the info about one of the European companies offering to let Canada build their jets here.

This article has worthwhile information in it, as well as links to sources. Perhaps it could have used an extra pass on the editing for readability’s sake, but it’s hardly just a summary of another article, and doesn’t read like AI slop to me.

try the Toronto Star: https://sh.itjust.works/post/42291759

Parliament can cancel a contract at any time, for any reason, with no financial penalties, and it’s likely there’s a clause in the contract itself whereby the minister can do this even without parliament. That’s why many of the discussions revolve around whether Canada should go ahead with all 88 jets or just the 16(?) we have already paid for. edit: article says “financially committed to”, so I’m not 100% sure we’ve paid already. If not, then yeah I’m pretty sure we can cancel the whole thing if we want to

Here’s the relevant part of the procurement laws https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/d-1/page-2.html#h-171862

See section 21 which reads as follows:

Premature rescission, resolution or termination of contract

21 No person is entitled to damages, compensation or other allowance for loss of profit, direct or indirect, arising out of the rescission, resolution or termination of a defence contract at any time before it is fully performed if it is rescinded, resolved or terminated under a power contained in the contract or under a power conferred by or under an Act of Parliament.

It links to the source.

This is the third paragraph of the article:

Reuters news service reported Thursday that the Canadian military is recommending that Canada stick with its proposed purchase of 88 U.S.-built F-35s. That recommendation didn’t come as a surprise for observers since the Canadian Forces originally lobbied for and selected the American stealth fighter.

Yes, I understand that Carney made that election promise, but it appears he does not intend to keep it.

The intent to cut the CBC’s funding has been widely reported. Here’s a piece from the Toronto Star: https://sh.itjust.works/post/42291759

ACAB ofc but wow do I hope the RCMP finds enough to lay charges over the Greenbelt scandal

For everyone rightly concerned about US & corporate/billionaire ownership & of our media oligopoly: please send a letter to our PM and tell him not to proceed with his plan to cut funding for the CBC.

A gentle reminder that the Carney Liberals have indicated they will be cutting the CBC’s funding despite campaigning on increasing it.

Cutting the CBC’s funding will reduce the proportion of Canadian media that is Canadian owned and operated.

On nuclear: my understanding from reading a bunch of stuff about the energy transition is that nuclear is expensive, slow to be built, is safe until it isn’t, and continues to have the unsolved problem of storing radioactive waste.

Whereas wind + solar + storage are inexpensive and quick to build. They require material resources though, to be sure.

With you on basically all the other stuff though!

The election promise: https://globalnews.ca/news/11116941/carney-singh-pledge-support-for-cbc-radio-canada-amid-u-s-threats/

The policy now that the election is over: https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/suggest-your-own-spending-cuts-carney-government-tells-cbc-via-rail-and-other-crown-corporations/article_1bb3283e-a3a1-4a5d-bc6e-3405f7b37231.html

I absolutely agree with everything you just said.

And yet when our PM threatens to slash the CBC’s budget by $198m, the same folks hammering those points fail to point out the exact same issue of undue pressure and influence. Why?

“the U.S. will own all parts for Canada’s F-35s even when they are located at Canadian bases.”

Lol even if you believe our resources are better put toward fighter jets than, say, fighting forest fires: that’s not a purchase, that’s a rental

Well, hopefully you can continue to provide this type of analysis when others in this community cast doubt on high-quality reporting merely because of the nationality of an outlet’s ownership.

Sounds like you’d agree that the Canadian reporters who happen to work for US-owned outlets like the Ottawa Citizen are also doing their best to tell the truth. Totally reasonable argument

What you are repeating is the Conservatives’ narrative, sure!

However, those threats continually made the CBC’s coverage friendly to the Conservatives, because they wanted to be seen as ‘neutral’ (and to give the Conservatives a reason to not cut their funding if they were to win an election).

Put it this way: if you were the CBC right now, would you be inclined to go full ‘gloves off’ and be hypercritical of the Carney govt? Or would you be trying to make nice, and potentially avoid these massive cuts?