I don’t doubt that this is true on balance

I know the questions keep coming up (and it’s totally fair play), but…I don’t have the impression that it’s had any sort of impact on the electorate. Maybe I’m wrong.

I don’t doubt that this is true on balance, but the Danielle Smith jokes practically write themselves…

I guess it’s possible that it was a Liberal plant, but it has big “man vandalizes own house” energy.

Just the flexibility to get it done on your own terms, really.

I’m by no means defending this move (it’s dumb and bad, just like…everything else the US government does these days), but they seem to be delegating the inspections to individual states.

I assume at least some states will maintain good standards, and Canada will have to pay close attention to which states those are.

All told, I was in line for about 90(!) minutes yesterday. That was at least partly the luck of the draw, though - my polling place had two polling stations open, and the other one had a line the fraction of the length of mine.

I’m standing in line at the polls right now, and all I can say is to be prepared for long lines.

Is keep getting wrong the same as lying?

Probably. But no journalistic outlet is going to call it “lying” without proof that the leaders don’t sincerely believe what they’re saying.

And that sort of proof is hard to get.

From what I’m seeing on Mastodon, there was some kind of altercation between Ezra Levant and other reporters…

I certainly agree that it’s very questionable to have an explicitly regional party in the federal debates, but for clarity’s sake, the criteria are 2/3 of the following:

• having at least one sitting MP who’s been elected as a member of that party

• having at least four per cent national support in opinion polls

• running candidates in at least 90 per cent of all ridings

After pulling the candidates, the Green Party only meets one of these criteria (the first).

Yeah, from what I’ve gathered from previous articles on the topic, CSIS does not have boots-on-the-ground spies, foreign assets, or the infrastructure to support them.

Then we should be tracking down and firing everyone involved from all parties?

Yup.

In this case, I think there might be a case to be made.

“The prosecutor would be, I think, concerned … if the investigation was still going on behind the scenes, without them being looped in, while they’re trying to prosecute a case,” said Michael Arntfield, a criminologist and professor at Western University who worked for 16 years as a detective with the London Police Service in Ontario.

“If they say they can’t interview him, that to me sounds like they’ve taken direction either from the Crown or from superior officers to not potentially interfere with the prosecution.”

Sure, I just don’t find “everybody does it” to be a particularly compelling argument. Wrong is wrong.

Absolutely. It’s beyond me why someone would be against a hearing taking place, considering a “no” would be practically guaranteed in cases like these.

Carney said they’ve been “reassigned” within the campaign.

Not nearly enough.

Is it safe to say that casual use of the notwithstanding clause has been normalized to the point that there are no real consequences to invoking it any more?

CBC is reporting this as fact, not an allegation - it’s safe to assume that they know exactly who these campaign workers are.

There are also decent reasons not to name them just yet - if they’re low-level staffers, it’s worth trying to get a comment from the Party first, and/or try to determine how far up the ladder this goes. No sense in scapegoating the grunts until the higher-ups are ID’d.

On Friday night, in two Ottawa bars, campaign workers shared how the party was behind this move — how two Liberal Party staffers attended the conference intended for conservatives and placed these buttons in areas where attendees would find them.

One of those conversations was in the immediate earshot of this journalist. A Conservative source overheard the other conversation.