A constitutional crisis in the making. Book it.

If a councilor is talking about accountability, if she doesn't want to hear what people think, why not mute the conversation rather than close the comments?

RT @MarcLevesqueEco: Yep. Freeland is very much a continuation of the Trudeau Liberals (is anyone surprised — she was FM and Deputy PM?) an…

Will even one journalist ask, "WTF are you talking about? What Emergency Powers, for what, and how?" Surely helping the public understand what the next PM is talking about is one of the reasons Canadians are paying a part of journalists' salaries.

Don't get me wrong, the @AtIssueCBC panel and @bruce_arthur will buy it.

This is true. In the neighborhood of how many Canadians died with Covid.

I'm no journalist, but if I were one, I would want to ask him exactly what he is proposing rather than assuming. No one seems curious.

Japan ahead. Getting closer.

If the alternative is traveling around Europe, given the stakes, I am glad they are making an effort. There's a time for hunting for "likes" on X and a time for supporting those who are doing what they can to help.

Three companies giving up on projects - two losing hundreds of millions and a billion dollars - within a short window is telling. When all three companies, in a similar time frame, point to the regulatory uncertainty they were facing as one of the reasons they walked away, we should believe them. It is more nuance than you claim, IMO.

@MarcLevesqueEco @acoyne I should have added Mr. Poiliervre hasn't offered detail either. Though in fairness, he isn't running for PM *yet*, and his constitutional role is to oppose until the writ is dropped. But it is such a weird situation right now...

An unsurprising endorsement ... without reference to or comment upon one policy.

Correcting propositions that are unsound and providing information about the QC Secession Reference and the Clarity Act are not expressions of support for separation. I am not a secessionist.

.@TerryGlavin puts forward two propositions in the screenshots below, both of which are unsound. The first is that QC has a right to secede, but other provinces do not. The second is that upon session, some provinces would have a claim to assets, and others would not. These propostions are not supported by the QC Secession Reference or by the Clarity Act. 1. There is nothing in the Clarity Act that supports the proposition that QC alone has a right to separate. Indeed, there is language in the QC Secession Reference that contradicts that. It is quite clear that any province can separate. This is different from the US, which forbids secession. 2. So, in the unlikely and unfortunate event a province in Canada engages the Clarity Act and votes to separate, what happens? 3. The House of Commons must determine if the referendum question supporting the separation was clear. According to the Clarity Act, a question must directly express the will of the province's population on whether it should cease to be part of Canada. 4. After the referendum, if the question is deemed clear, the House of Commons must also determine if there has been a "clear expression of a will by a clear majority" of the province's population to secede. The Clarity Act does not define what constitutes a "clear majority," leaving it to political judgment, but it suggests considerations beyond a simple majority, such as voter turnout and other relevant circumstances. 5. Focusing more on whether AB or SK would have a claim to anything, if both the question and the majority are clear, the Government of Canada is obliged to enter into negotiations regarding the secession. Contrary to what Terry says, that is true for any province. There are no "second class" provinces in this regard. This obligation stems from the Supreme Court's opinion in the Quebec Secession Reference, which was codified into law through the Clarity Act. The colonial language Terry uses about AB and SK isn't true or helpful. 5. So, what would these negotiations involve? + A settlement regarding the division of assets and liabilities, including federal and provincial assets, debts, and contracts. + A determination of new international borders. + Addressing the rights, interests, and territorial claims of Indigenous peoples, which could be significantly affected by secession. + Ensuring the protection of minority rights within the seceding province. + Potentially discussing future relations, including issues like currency, trade, defense, and other forms of association with Canada. 6. Secession would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. 7. All these negotiations would be complex and politically charged, potentially involving international law, economic agreements, and the redefinition of national identity. The process would likely take years. 8. International Recognition presents its own issues, which could override all of the above. If a province were to seek to secede and the US recognized it, the processes outlined are likely moot. Throughout this process, the Clarity Act ensures that the decision to secede isn't unilateral but involves a national dialogue and negotiation, aiming to maintain peace and legality within the framework of Canadian law and international norms.

@nspector4 "When the gods want to punish you, they give you exactly what you wish for."

RT @Citizen004: After 9 1/2 years, the @liberal_party itself recognizes they screwed up so badly that they have to engage "Emergency Powers…