1. I think I was thinking of your cite that most Canadians don't want to have foreigners giving birth in Canada, and having the baby declared Canadian. And that being a reason to pass a law or take action somehow.
But who says its populist emotionality? Who says it's not just common sense? Why should we give citizenship to people who aren't Canadian? The reason to pass the law to change the rule is because the current rule makes no sense and it puts obligations on us, including financial obligations, on behalf of people who are not and should not be Canadians. Is there some emotionality in not wanting to be taken advantage of? I suppose, but curtailing the law seems entirely logical and involves no downside to Canada I can see.
2. You just said that your "feelings" can be defended "logically". Think about that a second.
Would it make you feel better if I said my 'beliefs' about these things instead of my 'feelings' about these things? That is what I meant.
3. Your side ? Clearly your feelings are logical so you shouldn't HAVE to compromise - am I right ?
The compromise made by those who support development has already been made. It involves massive expense, environmental safety regulations native consultation, environmental assessments, public hearings and years of fitting the proposed development into the regulatory framework and ensuring all the T's are dotted and all the is are dotted.
Where is the similar compromise on the part of those with environmental concerns? Rachel Notley thought that if she did her best to appease environmentalists, going all in on CO2 reduction, inserting new environmental regulations and such, the environmentalists would cut her some slack. They didn't give her an inch. Their stand is not one iota different than it was before she and Trudeau got elected. No pipelines. Ever. Under an circumstances. For any reason. No matter the assurances and safeguards.