Keith R. Martin

Husband, Father, Scout, Engineer, Entrepreneur, Music lover, Sports fan-TSSRoversOwnr, Photographer, Sailor. Life is the ultimate exercise in first principles.

[Andrew Coyne 🇺🇦🇮🇱🇬🇪🇲🇩 @acoyne]

My latest: The whole world is watching https://t.co/VMg0en924Q

[Daniel Hannan @DanielJHannan]

An apt day to remember that Dolly Parton once recorded a cover of Stairway to Heaven - and, in defiance of every moral law in the universe, she absolutely owned it.

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@kaique_wagner @elonmusk .. please help these spam ads have suddenly begun flooding @X and are significantly degrading the product...

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@LicenciadoByron @grok why is X permitting the mass delivery of these scam ads

[Doug Treleaven @drtreleaven]

Please explain this @gregorrobertson: how will the government "acquire units in bulk, at a discount to market value"? The market price is whatever someone is willing to pay, so:
(1) if the units aren't selling on the open market, that means they are priced above the market price, and
(2) if the developers sell to the government "below market value", why don't they just sell to individuals directly at the "below market value"?
You claim that "prices and sales are already both low" -- if the prices are "low", then why aren't people buying the condos?
The only logical explanation is that you are bailing out B.C. developers and incorrectly attempting to use free-market words to sell a failing socialistic housing strategy.
If you're qualified to be the federal housing minister, I'm open to hearing the specifics and financial rationale of your plan, and how it is fair and equitable for Canadian taxpayers.
#CanadaTax #CanadaHousing #cdnpoli #Taxpayers

[Mo Amir 🪬 @vancolour]

Leave the condos empty.

Tax the empty condos for being empty.

Let condo prices plummet until the condos are no longer not empty.

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@gregorrobertson So lets use taxpayer money to cover market losses of the very developers who made billions of $ in the past 2 decades driven by the government allowing massive foreign money laundering into residential real estate thus driving prices beyond the reach of ordinary Canadians! WTF?

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@gregorrobertson So lets use taxpayer money to cover market losses of the very developers who made billions of $ in the past 2 decades driven by the government allowing massive foreign money laundering into residential real estate thus driving prices beyond the reach of ordinary Canadians! WTF?

[Aaron Pete @Aaronpete_]

I'm prepared to go to jail over this.

My grandmother Rita Pete went to St. Mary's Indian Residential School. She experienced terrible abuse. As a consequence, she struggled with alcohol use most of her life.

My mother was born with FASD as a consequence of her using alcohol to cope with her trauma.

I am Chief of my community Chawathil First Nation. I am working to address the longstanding impacts of these past policies through renovating homes, building new homes, creating childcare, and growing businesses through economic development.

I have interviewed people who went to Indian Residential Schools. I have interviewed people who believe Indian Residential Schools were awful, horrible schools, meant to remove the Indian from the child.

I've also interviewed people who believe they were well intended, generous investments by Canadian taxpayers meant to assimilate a society and had shortcomings.

Like with many things, the history is dark, complicated, and with any policy that existed for a long time, across a whole country - there were different experiences.

No one story tells us everything. No report shares the full experience of the individuals who went. No commentator today can disprove someone's lived experience with statistics.

The path forward is not to criminalize speech, questions, or debate.

The path forward is empathy for past attendees.
The path forward is truth based on facts.
The path forward is real conversations.
The path forward is to lean into complexity.

If the government criminalizes this, then I will be a criminal for having these conversations.

If I am a criminal by the laws definition, then I am committed to going to jail over this.

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@preta_6 @JCCFCanada Done.

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@cyber_razz NAT of course...

[J.K. Rowling @jk_rowling]

If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.

If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.

If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.

If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@Aaronpete_ Bravo! Keep leading!

[george @StokeyyG2]

In England, you’d assume that every football game, every train and every road would be closed in these conditions.

In Ottawa, Canada a player has just scored an overhead kick to level the game 👏🤣

Superb.

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@acoyne I respectfully suggest you stay in your lane, on this topic you are completely and utterly out of your depth.

[ELON CLIPS @ElonClipsX]

Elon Musk: If you're leading engineers, you should yourself be good at engineering.

“If somebody is going to lead something in technology, they must themselves be good at technology. If they're going to lead something that involves complex engineering, they must themselves be good at engineering.

They don't necessarily need to be the best engineer on the team, but they need to be very competent in their field. This is incredibly important.

To me, if somebody's leading a given engineering field or engineering department, and they are not good at that, then that would be like a cavalry captain who can't ride a horse.

Problem: great leader in every way, except he can't ride a horse. Then you've got to charge into battle, and the cavalry captain falls off the horse. It's not inspiring.

So, the cavalry captain must be able to ride a horse. They don't need to be the best horse rider, but they must be competent in this regard.

Otherwise, they cannot evaluate the talent of the team. And they don't understand the technology that's being developed. This may seem like a simple thing, but it is often the case that this is overlooked.”

Interview at West Point, August 16, 2024

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@vasuman You are clearly not developing for mission critical systems.

[Howard Anglin @howardanglin]

What @SeanFraserMP doesn't say, but must know, is that he has asked the Supreme Court to adopt a totalising view of judicial power that would fundamentally alter the Constitutional compact of 1982, throwing the country into constitutional crisis. Funny he leaves that out.

I'll explain:

1. As the Alberta Government's factum puts it, "The Constitution Act, 1982 was the result of a carefully negotiated federal-provincial agreement. Simply put, there would have been no Charter without s.33."

2. Minister Fraser and the Liberal government now want the Courts to undo that agreement and exercise a plenary and undefined power to limit the ability of legislatures to use the democratic safeguard of s.33.

3. On what basis are they asking the court do do this? Oh, you know ... ::Liberals gesture vaguely:: ... by using a ... uh ... "holistic" reading of the "basic constitutional structure" of the constitution ... sortofthing.

4. Why should that phrase "basic constitutional structure" raise alarm bells? Because it's the justification Supreme Courts in other countries have used to sweep aside democratic powers (look up "basic structure doctrine.")

5. How baseless is this proposal? Baseless enough that the Liberal government actually has to try to twist the fact that the Charter expressly provides for renewals of s.33 into an argument that this means that it in some cases it should not be allowed to be renewed. Really. (See AGC factum ¶¶ 26-31).

6. The Liberal government doesn't even purport to offer a test or clear rule for when the Court should second-guess and limit the use of s.33. Their actual words: "[T]his Court need not establish a definitive or exhaustive test. A court could assess the impact of any statute invoking s.33 by examining the specific circumstances of each use and by conducting a contextual analysis." (¶40).

7. It gets worse, but the upshot is that the Liberal government is asking the Supreme Court to engage in an unconstitutional power grab that would re-write the political compact that underpins our Constitution. How?

8. In 1982, all parties agreed that the Constitution would preserve some of the safeguards of our parliamentary democracy to prevent a handover of all legal and political powers to the courts. That safeguard was preserved in s.33. Now the Liberal government wants the courts to assume control of s.33 and limit its use based on an undefined "test" that the judges themselves will make up and apply on a case-by-case basis.

9. If the Court follows this approach, it is asking for a constitutional crisis. It is making the case for QC separation and inviting governments to ignore its rulings. I would like to think that at least four justices of the SCC have sufficient respect for the Constitution and enough of an instinct for institutional self-preservation to reject the Liberal government's reckless approach.

10. We'll see. I am not optimistic.

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@ElonClipsX 💯

[Keith R. Martin @krm_canada]

@bruce_mcgonigal Your statement here is typical online drivel. Nothing prevents modular homes that are properly engineered and which are constructed by red seal trades, with quality controlled materials, from being just as good as "traditional builds". They just cost less and go up faster.