Did Colleen Simard really write this?
We followed them while I talked to the police, but could barely keep up. They were doing around 80 km/h at times heading down Maryland Street.Let me get this straight: you were upset that these maroons "were driving dangerously and someone could get hurt", so you decided to get into a high-speed car chase with them while talking on your cell phone.
What did she hope to accomplish? "We decided to follow them to check it out, because if there's one thing I hate it's people who drink and drive." Yet it's been proven many times over that driving while talking on a cell phone is no safer than drinking and driving. I suspect that speeding down Maryland, enraged about egg-throwing yahoos, while talking on a cell phone is even more dangerous.
EDIT: as a commenter points out, it could be her friend that is driving. Colleen does not make this clear, using only the term "we" to describe their driving exploits. (If it was me doing the writing, I would have been sure to clarify that point ... if in fact I was the passenger.)
Somewhat related to my previous post, David Watson posts a transcript from our distinguished leaders in the Leg, including this bit:
(Selinger) The boreal forest is considered to be ... one of the best natural defences against global warming. The members opposite want to rip it up. They want to destroy the boreal forest."destroy" the forest? How does running a hydro line through a small edge of the 3 million square kilometre forest equate to destroying the forest? If Premier Selinger wants to defend against global warming, his concern should be the massive power losses from his preferred west-side route.