True, but I assume that if there were an obvious successor waiting in the wings, the result would have been…at least less lopsided.

I look forward to analyses. Was it a lack of clear alternatives, or is their base so far gone that they genuinely think he’s their guy?

I would be fine with that - “shit is fucked” isn’t a crime with a specific legal definition!

“The SIU’s investigative jurisdiction is limited to those incidents involving officials where there is a serious injury, death, allegation of sexual assault or discharge of a firearm by an official at a person,” Denette said.

Weeeeeeaaaaaaak shit

Yeah, unfortunately I don’t see anything there about FIFA actually considering it…

I’m describing Eby’s use of the word casual, as I don’t think he, as an elected official, should be accusing people of crimes - especially those with an extraordinarily high bar.

Do I think the Alberta separatists are wrong? Yes.

Do I consider it a betrayal? Yes.

Am I fine with the average person on the street using the word “treason” to describe it. Sure.

Do I think elected officials should do the same? No.

Is there really a credible source on that? I wouldn’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that they change course now.

is as threating if not more than military buildup.

I really don’t think that would hold up in court, and in any case it is irrelevant to whether the Alberta separatists are sharing military secrets, or doing anything that would meet Canada’s legal definition of treason.

As was pointed out when that was discussed earlier this week, no they aren’t. They’re trying to convince us that our military will be weaker if we don’t buy their planes, and that they will have to pick up the slack.

The administration isn’t that bright. When they threaten military force, it won’t be subtle.

I think there would have to be an actual military buildup to make that stick.

To be clear, I’m more than happy to call them colliquially treasonous…I just don’t think elected officials should be throwing the term around too casually.

Legally speaking? Almost certainly not.

(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

© conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

Yeah, this is already something they can (and do) do under the terms of NORAD.

Yes, indeed.

This strategy will include measures to implement unit price labelling so Canada can compare easily in this era of ‘shrinkflation,’ as well as support for the work of the Competition Bureau in monitoring and enforcing competition in our market," he said.

This would be a welcome requirement in my books.

Yeah, I don’t get where the “appeasement” narrative is coming from.

A lot of the CentrePort initiative has relied on the province being a good export route from the US, though.

I don’t think it’s clear what he means, tbh. I don’t see how it could mean anything other than a permanent military presence there, which…isn’t currently on the table?

Sure, but I’m not about to absolve the spa of responsibility for what they put out into the world.

Can’t say I agree with that.

Alexandre Boileau, Groupe Nordik’s senior director of marketing in sales, said in an emailed statement to CBC News that the survey was “reviewed in advance” but admits the company “did not apply sufficient scrutiny” to the values-based questions CROP included.

Yeah, I don’t know if they’re focusing on more geographically spread-out areas, or what.

It sounds like the party is in the toilet, and the PQ is riding high in the polls…