Canada losing parliamentary process, bills now pass without voting thanks to "one weird trick"
"When the Omnibus Budget Implementation Act was first tabled November 18th, reporters asked me if I would vote against it. They were baffled when I said, “I will vote 'no' if I am allowed to vote.” They were nonplussed. How could MPs NOT be allowed to vote on a major confidence measure – a 600+ page bill? As I suspected, we were not allowed to vote. C-15 breezed through Thursday afternoon “on division.” The whole thing took less than five minutes" - Elizabeth May, Good Sunday Morning newsletter, March1 2026
A big chance to the way Canadian Parliament operates is happening, with little public knowledge. With the support of whipped votes from the Conservatives and Bloc, and the NDP lacking official party status, Carney is able to push bills through "on division", without any of the normal study, debate, or chance for MPs to vote in Parliament. This is possible when no party with official status challenges it. In the past five MPs from any party could force a vote, but this was changed in 2020. Even less power for individual MPs.
Not even Harper who also messed with Parliamentary procedures was able to do this.
Is it justified as a wartimes measure, given the unprecedented threat from our former ally, the United States? The thing is, the Wartimes Measures Act is defined as temporary and defined by strict parameters. This is just becoming the new normal, without debate.
More info here #Canada
river
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to river • • •Mr.Mark "The Sharpie King"
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Happy to share this, do you have any more info about the reflect plan? This sounds as bad as the Russian company that’s planning on running advertisements in space.
Olson
in reply to Mr.Mark "The Sharpie King" • • •@markmetz @river
What?!? Who is gonna see them?
I’m glad I’m old.
Mr.Mark "The Sharpie King"
in reply to Olson • • •The idea is that we all will, and we won’t have a choice.
Julescelt
in reply to Mr.Mark "The Sharpie King" • • •Olson
in reply to Julescelt • • •@julescelt01 @markmetz @river
A few months ago, someone tooted a pic of a Canadian farmer looking at the rubbish of a satellite which fell from the sky. If I recall correctly, an old wooden barn was in the pic. Do we really need this?
Frank Heijkamp
in reply to Olson • • •@Olson
They will take another picture without the barn in shot.
I know, that was not the point you were making. Agreed, space junk falling down is a very bad thing and should be stopped. I urge people to stop using any service that uses satellites in Lower Earth Orbit (LEO). Stop using services like #starlink as it is far more polluting than you think.
@julescelt01 @markmetz @sundogplanets @river
Nichol Brummer
in reply to Frank Heijkamp • • •Frank Heijkamp
in reply to Nichol Brummer • • •The fact that the mess in Lower Earth Orbit will clean itself up does however result in a lot of pollution in the upper atmosphere. We do not know enough about the long term effects this has on our atmosphere. Therefore my point of view is to not launch so many things into LEO.
@Olson @julescelt01 @markmetz @sundogplanets @river
Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to Frank Heijkamp • • •Frank Heijkamp
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •@Nichol @Olson @julescelt01 @markmetz @river
Frank Heijkamp
in reply to Frank Heijkamp • • •@Nichol @Olson @julescelt01 @markmetz @river
Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to Frank Heijkamp • • •A new space race could turn our atmosphere into a ‘crematorium for satellites’
The ConversationFrank Heijkamp
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •@Nichol @Olson @julescelt01 @markmetz @river
Frank Heijkamp
in reply to Julescelt • • •A Sunlight Service, ASS.
@markmetz @Olson @sundogplanets @river
pelha
in reply to Olson • • •Jennifer
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •legocas
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •L'égrégore André ꕭꕬ
in reply to legocas • • •Unfortunately they have an outsized influence in our society.
Tony Meredith
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Petra van Cronenburg
in reply to Tony Meredith • • •Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to Petra van Cronenburg • • •L'égrégore André ꕭꕬ
in reply to Tony Meredith • • •Carolyn
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •MimiWhiskers
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •It makes zero sense to launch datacenters in space. I ain't gonna go through the technical reasons why, but you can read here where someone that actually worked at NASA and google explaining why its a bad idea... taranis.ie/datacenters-in-spac…
But if I could take a moment to poke my conspiracy brain, I think this is more for building an advanced surveillance network against the whole world. You can possibly monitor almost everything on Earth with a network like that.
Datacenters in space are a terrible, horrible, no good idea.
TaranisTilda Moose, programmer
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •ACT UP
May be considered as #ecocide, I wonder
Stop the bastards messing with the natural order
Nonya Bidniss
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •diana 🏳️⚧️🦋🌱
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Bob Blaskiewicz 🇺🇦 🇨🇦 🇬🇱
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Deborah Preuss, pcc 🇨🇦
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Christo. London, England
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Angela Scholder
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Sina G.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Craig Duncan
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Gia BENNETH
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •crouton
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •cynthia rose is desirable
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •persistentdreamergames
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to persistentdreamergames • • •Incident Creator ❎
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Sophie Hassfurther
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to Sophie Hassfurther • • •May Keable 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •undead enby of the apocalypse
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Thomas H Jones
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Brian Johnson
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Ok, so launching one satellite every 10 minutes nonstop would take almost 20 years to launch a million satellites, and that is assuming that someone can build them and deliver them to launch pads at that rate.
Completely unrealistic. Is this really about launching that much or is it about generating hype before trying to sell something or raise money?
Julescelt
in reply to Brian Johnson • • •Emil "AngryAnt" Johansen
in reply to Brian Johnson • • •@BrianJohnson Odds definitely say that a million AI datacenters in orbit is just more fragile ego twitter trolling for shareholders.
However playing with the numbers conservatively, using the 2025 SpaceX launch numbers (down from initial targets) and assuming starlink sattellites get retooled (or just rebranded) as "AI datacenters" for twitter/shareholder creds, SpaceX would need 125 years to launch 1mill units. 62.5 years if using Starship.
Plenty damage early on "for the lols"
s0 Traingirl Era
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Lunaphied
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Prof. Sam Lawler
Unknown parent • • •Kai Rüsberg
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •We don't need AI. AI needs us.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •John Carlsen 🇺🇸🇳🇱🇪🇺
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Erika
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Deuchnord
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Ronan
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Petra van Cronenburg
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Luci Bitchface Angerfoot
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Vacuolic
Unknown parent • • •Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •DarkSky International now has a set of (very similar) instructions on how to submit a comment on the filings above: darksky.org/news/two-satellite…
They provide templates to help get you started (but be careful using templates, it's my understanding that the FCC will only consider "unique" comments that are submitted). But I think having a large number of individuals who are willing to jump through all the stupid hoops the FCC has set up is a pretty powerful statement in itself! Thanks, all.
reshared this
Bluejay, Kim Spence-Jones 🇬🇧😷, Squibbles, The Lady (La Donna), Patrick Hadfield and sky reshared this.
Carolyn
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Future Sprog
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •I followed the AAS guide last night and put in a comment on both.
I made up a fairly bare bones PDF about how I’m concerned about the light pollution destroying our dark skies, as the existing SpaceX satellites do.
Took me about half an hour. The hardest part was getting the FCC user registration form to accept my completely correct details! It seems my phone number was too short.
And then also the login page is on a different domain so it didn’t autofill.
A lot of friction.
@sundogplanets
donald_brady
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Paul Walker
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Stateless Press
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Carl
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Tilda Moose, citizen
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •rednikki
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •🇺🇦 haxadecimal 🚫👑
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Iho-aNn
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •RachelPearce
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •dave
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •(^^)
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Matilda Love
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •actions speak louder than words
an angry crowd at spacex offices and facilities for example
Eric Lawton
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •“This process is also open to those outside the United States who may be impacted by a proposed system.”
Which is everyone in the planet.
Those of us outside the US could also be asking our own governments why they are not protesting this colonisation of space.
(Other than the usual risking of economic and military warfare, of course).
@alice
woffs
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)gdtrfb57
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •