this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
45 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10682 readers
543 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly pitted two giant defence companies against one another on Tuesday for the future of Canada's fighter fleet, saying the $27-billion contract to buy 88 U.S.-made F-35 jets doesn’t deliver enough jobs for workers in this country and that the public expects a better deal.

In perhaps her most pointed comments to date, Joly acknowledged publicly that the federal government was talking with Swedish defence contractor Saab, which has promised to bring thousands of aerospace manufacturing jobs to the country in the assembly of its Gripen E fighter jet.

"We think that we can use military procurement to get more,” Joly told reporters. “That is why we're looking, indeed, at the Gripen."

She said Saab is offering 10,000 jobs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

If the supreme court strikes down Trump's ability to tariff under the IEEPA,

In that instance, Trump is likely to either find another loophole (whether valid or not) to exploit for the next 10 months until the court can try and stop him again, or ignore the ruling completely.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

We already know what the other hypothetical loopholes are. None of them would offer him as much freedom to implement tariffs as the one he's currently trying to use. That's why he's using it in the first place.

As for ignoring the courts, I think it's really important to understand that:

  1. Trump hasn't actually followed through on that threat any of the times he's made it so far... They've dragged their heels on a lot of things, but they've never actually managed to fully defy a court order yet. That's why Abrego Garcia isn't in El Salvador. If the Trump admin were actually confident they had the ability to flat out ignore the courts, that guy would still be rotting in Bukele's black site.

  2. This is very, very different from ordering ICE to bully immigrants. The Trump admin continuing to enforce a tariff that the courts had struck down would immediately crash the US bond market. Remember when bonds got a little "yippy" and Trump chickened the fuck out? This would be a thousand times worse. Because any tariffs collected by the admin would, eventually, have to be paid back once the rule of law prevails. Yes, I can already see you gearing up to say that the rule of law will never prevail, there won't a 2028 election, etc, etc. I know all that, but international bond markets don't. They are hidebound stuffy old institutions fully of neoliberals who expect norms and rule of law to prevail. Which means that the US putting itself in a situation where it will be forced to repay potentially trillions of dollars in illegally collected taxes (depending on how long the tariffs are illegally enforced for) will look an awful like a serious likelihood of a country going bankrupt or defaulting on its debts. That's the sort of thing that sends bond markets spiralling. Liz Truss collapsed the UK bond market and her own prime ministership by doing far, far less.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 minutes ago

You are more optimistic than I am about how Trump and his puppeteers will react.

I hope some semblance of sanity can eventually prevail.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

It's the second one.

The checks and gentlemen's agreements that the US government is based on don't mean shit as Trump has proven.