Stay safe out there, Albertans.

It's not a great comparison, really - the Manitoba Orange Team more strongly resembles the Federal Red Team in most respects.

Winnipeg suburbs breaking NDP in a federal election is far from a sure thing.

People don't talk about it much, but a significant chunk of the NDP base (~10%, if I remember correctly) jumped to the Conservatives, not the Liberals, in the last election. Some of these numbers might be them returning?

Fuck you, Carney.

The expanded birthright citizenship rules were brought about as a result of a 2023 court ruling, very solidly in the Trudeau era.

I'm not completely opposed to hosting these mega-events, or subsidizing them to a degree. Whatever you might think about the "prestige" factor, they can be a good excuse to ram through valuable infrastructure projects.

But the devil's in the details (and FIFA in this instance is a literal devil), and it's madness to expect an actual profit.

I think it's more about shoddy training and oversight of the staff.

I guess I'll add a more moderate take of "this is probably intended for absolute emergencies like a Biblical plague of locusts or something," but in the name of the Prophets, put guardrails on your emergency measures.

It will be interesting to see what the Senate does with it - they're not as predictable as they used to be.

I mean sure, investigate away - but they're not likely to find anything, because the legal definition of "treason" is quite narrow. Mere "foreign interference and influence" ain't gonna cut it.

High treason

46 (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason

(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;

c) 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.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that we shouldn't change laws to retroactively target individuals.

That was my first reaction, but the regulatory gaps highlighted are actually pretty important.

I only recently discovered this channel, but I find their economics-based energy and climate discussions pretty interesting.

In this episode in particular, they talk a lot about what they think Carney is getting right in his approach to climate (though I wish they would have given more details), as well as something they think he might be getting very, very wrong.

They had contact with multiple federal agencies, including Transport Canada, Parks Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans. DFO in particular flagged concerns, and failed to pass them on to Transport Canada.

Oceangate was a terrible company run by a terrible person, but we shouldn't be dismissing this story.

This is not an article about amending the criminal code, nor is it an article about having the RCMP investigate people for future crimes (at least, I hope not).

If they can show that Sylvestre et al have committedntreason, then 46.2(e) might be applicable.

Maybe. Is there any credible reason to think that they have access to military or scientific secrets that threaten the government?

As for sedition, it is the use of force as a means of accomplishing governmental change, or advocacy thereof. I don't think that line has been crossed yet.

But as I said, go ahead and investigate. I just doubt there's anything there. Yet.

Not my country, but the Beeb seems to be having a bit of an existential crisis at best...entering a death spiral, at worst.

Yeah, I guess there's some provision somewhere that doesn't require them to amend the entire criminal code every time there's a change in the monarchy?

I think you hit it on the head in the post - funding an expensive sci-fi series (and no matter how much they slash the budget, it would still be "expensive") is a non-starter.

I strongly disagree with the first three points (not yours, I know) - especially in the TOS era - but I do agree it doesn't quite feel the way I want it to.

I think it's Celia Gooding in unusual makeup, but how fun would it be to give Spock some Burnham closure?