Yeah, in October. That’s nearly a year away.

There’s potentially a lot of time before the next election, and campaigns matter.

Things look bleak, but I don’t think I’d call it a “foregone conclusion.”

This honestly warms my frozen Manitoban heart.

It would be great if we would all show a little more collective pride and promote the places we live as, you know, nice places to visit.

Every place in this country has something to offer.

Except that Trump-style government will have negative knock-on effects on the Canadian status quo, and people will inevitably blame the current administration for that…

That’s because the so-called “fixed election date” leglisation only circumvents the 5-year limit laid out in the consitution. The federal and provincial Crown representatives retain the ability to call a general election - I don’t think that can be changed without an amendment to the constitution, which ain’t gonna happen.

It’s always been smoke and mirrors.

It seems that they have problems with the entire process, and want to restart on more equitable terms.

“This resolution speaks to the desired process that we see as path forward to getting the final settlement agreement back on track, to address the flaws identified by regions across the country and to create fairer, more equitable, more open, transparent process,” Khelsilem, council chairperson of the Squamish Nation in B.C., told the assembly.

The resolution directs the AFN executive committee to establish a national Children’s Chiefs Commission with regional representation to provide direction and oversight of the long-term reform agreement negotiations.

It also directs the AFN to postpone any votes on settlement agreements until all First Nations have had at least 90 days to review them.

Okay yeah, I fully agree that they could have started much sooner. Getting things done quickly isn’t exactly the Liberals’ forté.

I guess I’m not sure what you think he should have done differently?

Like, this whole situation is a mess, and there’s a mix of possible “foreign influence” in play, ranging from “unsuccessful attempts” to “this person is an active foreign agent,” and it’s all based on classified CSIS intelligence. And these people are still elected officials, so it’s there more that even could be done beyond perhaps booting them out of caucus?

Surely we can agree that the situation isn’t as straightforward as we’d like it to be.

There’s already another article posted about this, but I would think the concerns around releasing classified information are self-evident.

The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there’s nothing they can do because Poilievre won’t do something he’s made clear he won’t do.

I don’t think they’ve said this?

Poilievre and the Conservatives have been calling on Trudeau to release the names of allegedly compromised parliamentarians. They repeated that demand on Wednesday.

But law enforcement and national security agencies have been clear on this point: sharing any classified information is a crime.

“Anyone who reveals classified information is subject to the law equally and obviously, in this case, those names are classified at this time and to reveal them publicly would be a criminal offence,” RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn told MPs on the public accounts committee in June.

When CBC News later asked Flynn whether the names could be released in the House of Commons, where MPs enjoy certain legal protections, he suggested that could be a legal grey area.

“That’s a question that should be asked, due to the complexities of parliamentary privilege, of a legal expert,” Flynn said.

Stephanie Carvin, a former CSIS national security analyst, said there are several reasons why national security agencies wouldn’t want the names made public — starting with the fact that it could compromise ongoing investigations.

“We don’t want foreign governments knowing how we are collecting information. That’s why we protect our sources and methods,” she said.

“Did it advance the cause of national security? Did it advance the interest of the inquiry and the commissioners’ work? I’m not so sure.”

If it leads to Polievre getting his fucking security clearance, I would argue it does.

There would be no “partisan turn” to take if he would meet this basic expectation.

When questioned by Conservative Party lawyer Nando De Luca, Trudeau also said the names of Liberal parliamentarians and individuals from other parties are on the list of parliamentarians at risk of being compromised by foreign interference.

Wow, what a cudgel.

That would be irresponsible - this is intelligence, not evidence that would hold up in court.

Trudeau himself says that some of the intel could be wrong.

Of course, if they have irrefutable evidence regarding any individuals, I agree with you.

It seems like JT is handling the situation just about as well as could be expected.

Fair Vote Canada had some thoughts on that portion of the interview.

I’m glad the CBC is revisiting the story now that they have the other side.

Flag restrictions are typically a way to ban Pride flags without actually saying it out loud.

This article does not say threats were made - it says, “according to Chinese Canadian interview subjects, this invoked a widespread fear amongst electors, described as a fear of retributive measures from Chinese authorities should a CPC government be elected.”

That’s bad, to be sure, but if there was no direct threat, you’re going to have a pretty hard time prosecuting the issue.

So…if I were to say online that Donald Trump is an absolute disgrace, and people in the US should vote for his opponent, should I be facing charges in the US? Or maybe my comment should just be nuked?

By no means am I arguing that foreign influence is a good thing, but it’s awfully hard to regulate effectively.