"Prodigy" has demonstrated that they're willing to cancel something they gave an early renewal to.

I'm wondering if he'll be playing Roger Korby. During the panel, they said that they wouldn't confirm or deny certain rumours that have apparently been floating around.

Edit: I forgot they already cast him.

Yeah, this one has always been slated as a Paramount+ exclusive.

You know, modern medicine has made great strides when it comes to issues like this.

Despite the series' popularity with...people like us, I don't think the numbers were where Paramount+ wanted them. It seems like they have issues with animation in general, which is a damn shame.

Choices were made.

"Explorers" doesn't contain a single reference to Sisko using a replicator during construction, but he does say, "I want to use the same types of tools the Bajorans had." He asks O'Brien for a saw, and there are several scenes in which he's seen welding pieces together.

It gets converted into another form, as in the operation of any machine. I'm not arguing that it's destroyed.

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.

Yep, raw material and a net energy loss.

The Federation might have both in abundance, but I highly doubt that much energy consumption is allowed.

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?

All right, I have to ask - what did you do to get the scale right? It looks like you nailed it.

Follow-up story: Participant in illegal bison hunt in western Manitoba says she regrets falling for scam

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.

squints

Oh yeah, you're right.

“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.