I have to disagree with a few points the article made.
First, Canadians do not define ourselves as 'Not America'. The author may be confused with the nickname of "America's Hat" that is given to us by Americans in jest. We define ourselves by our own culture and politeness, thank you very much. I also disagree that we seek to escape 'economic dependence' on America. I think the Buy Canadian phenomenon arose as a rebuke to the aggressive annexation comments by the President, but I don't think this extends far beyond liquor and tourism.
The author then moves on to critique Build Canada Homes, focusing on the P3 partnerships and "profit over getting as many homes built as possible". The source for this criticism comes from CUPE, which at the very least is a biased source. Further, they cite the expiration of current federal housing programs as a knock against Carney... for what reason? Part of the reason our debt has ballooned so significantly is inefficiency, over-spending, and over-promising.
Lastly, the article goes into criticizing cuts to the public service. The PS has ballooned to an unsustainable size, every manager has a manager. Austerity was part of Carney's platform, because overspending on the PS is holding back projects like infrastructure building. I don't buy the author's argument that reducing the public service is bad, especially when they claim that GA lay-offs reduce our bargaining power for trade and investment agreements. This is conjecture based off less people = bad, more people = good, which is part of the reason the PS has grown to the size it has in the first place.
Efficiencies aren't created by bloating, and this article didn't sell me on the arguments it was making. Much of the content was opinion backed by little fact, and when it was, the facts were buried in secondary sources that were not elaborated upon or related back to the original argument.
Happy to hear other opinions.
My understanding of SKG comes entirely from watching the EU deposition, so take this with a grain of salt, but I lean towards agreeing with OP. There are other points of contention for SKG than just 'this doesn't apply retroactively'.
SKG is concerned with:
Just because the game is being kept online for another year, does not mean that it will be purchasable after that. In my view, publishers should take the GOG games route and allow their games to be kept DRM-free if they decide to stop support. That way, the game can be circulated amongst friends and enjoyed for years. I am not sure of the specifics of the plan for this game beyond the article though.