WE really need to get rid of this guy
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
Is Democracy DEAD in Canada?! #shorts
www.youtube.com
Do they have lots of balloons?Will the Liberals go “up” in the projection polls tomorrow? Anything is possible….Is Democracy DEAD in Canada?! #shorts
No, but there are quite a bunch of media outlets that owe TurdOWE, so they will be quite willing to lie to keep their welfare checks flowing in.
Ontario taxpayers paying millions in political party subsidies
Doug Ford promised to end the per vote subsidy, but his party, and others, continue to pull in millions.
Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Jun 06, 2024 • Last updated 3 days ago • 3 minute read
Doug Ford promised to end the per-vote subsidy, but years later, taxpayers are still paying big bucks to keep political parties afloat.
Doug Ford promised to end the per-vote subsidy, but years later, taxpayers are still paying big bucks to keep political parties afloat, writes columnist Brian Lilley.
Ontario taxpayers forked over $13 million to the four political parties represented at Queen’s Park last year.
It’s time for the political welfare to stop.
Doug Ford promised to end the per-vote subsidy, first brought in by Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government in 2017. The measure came as Liberal fundraising from average citizens was drying up and after Wynne’s government was caught in cash-for-access fundraisers with business executives.
“I do not believe the government should be taking money from hard-working taxpayers and giving it to political parties,” Doug Ford posted to Facebook when he was campaigning for the PC leadership in early 2018.
In February 2021, Ford’s government introduced legislation to extend the per vote subsidy rather than wind it down as promised.
“This subsidy is being extended due to the financial impact of COVID-19,” the government said in a news release at the time.
There is no doubt that COVID and the restrictions imposed by the Ford government at the time severely impacted the fundraising abilities for all parties involved. The plan was, however, not to immediately eliminate the per-vote subsidy, but to phase it out gradually.
The rate had been $2.54 per year for each vote a party received in the previous election. By 2021, the per-vote subsidy had decreased to $1.80 annually. Ford not only kept the subsidy in place, he boosted it back up to $2.54 until the end of 2024 when all subsidies are scheduled to end.
In 2023, the PC Party of Ontario received a subsidy of $5.1 million from taxpayers, the NDP received $3.6 million, the Ontario Liberal Party, nearly $3.6 million and the Greens around $700,000. Another $243,000 was paid out to the New Blue Party of Ontario, a party that isn’t represented in the legislature but met the threshold of receiving 2% of all ballots cast in the 2022 campaign.
Do the parties really need this money?
The easy answer is no, and that’s why it needs to stop.
The PC Party raised just shy of $8 million last year, the NDP, $3.2 million, the Liberals claim $3.1 million — higher than the $2.1 million reported to Elections Ontario — and the Greens raised $170,000.
Each party is also sitting on a significant surplus.
The PC Party had $8 million in the bank at the end of 2023; the Liberals, $2.5 million; the NDP, $2.1 million; and the Greens, $525,000.
These parties clearly don’t need money from taxpayers.
Supporters of per-vote subsidies will always claim it is about supporting democracy and taking big money out of politics. The reality is, big money has already been taken out of politics in Ontario.
It has been illegal for the last seven years for companies or unions to donate to a political party. There was a time when both big labour and big business threw their money and weight around in Ontario politics.
In some elections, prior to the ban, unions and union-funded groups would far outspend any single political party.
The current maximum that any single individual can donate is $3,375 per year. Politicians are not changing their votes or their policy positions for a $3,375 donation.
The problem with per-vote subsidies is that it rewards parties based on their past performance, not current performance. If Ford made moves that were wildly unpopular, especially with his voting base, he would hear about it quickly and donations would dry up.
With a guaranteed $5 million per year coming in from taxpayers, he’s less concerned.
Per-vote subsidies always help the party in power most, and not those trying to offer the public an alternative. Parties need to go out and earn your vote to be able to campaign, and they should have to earn your donation, as well.
The per-vote subsidy is scheduled to end on Dec. 31; let’s hope the government sticks to the plan and stops taking our tax dollars to fill party coffers.
torontosun.com
Doug Ford promised to end the per vote subsidy, but his party, and others, continue to pull in millions.
Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Jun 06, 2024 • Last updated 3 days ago • 3 minute read
Doug Ford promised to end the per-vote subsidy, but years later, taxpayers are still paying big bucks to keep political parties afloat.
Doug Ford promised to end the per-vote subsidy, but years later, taxpayers are still paying big bucks to keep political parties afloat, writes columnist Brian Lilley.
Ontario taxpayers forked over $13 million to the four political parties represented at Queen’s Park last year.
It’s time for the political welfare to stop.
Doug Ford promised to end the per-vote subsidy, first brought in by Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government in 2017. The measure came as Liberal fundraising from average citizens was drying up and after Wynne’s government was caught in cash-for-access fundraisers with business executives.
“I do not believe the government should be taking money from hard-working taxpayers and giving it to political parties,” Doug Ford posted to Facebook when he was campaigning for the PC leadership in early 2018.
In February 2021, Ford’s government introduced legislation to extend the per vote subsidy rather than wind it down as promised.
“This subsidy is being extended due to the financial impact of COVID-19,” the government said in a news release at the time.
There is no doubt that COVID and the restrictions imposed by the Ford government at the time severely impacted the fundraising abilities for all parties involved. The plan was, however, not to immediately eliminate the per-vote subsidy, but to phase it out gradually.
The rate had been $2.54 per year for each vote a party received in the previous election. By 2021, the per-vote subsidy had decreased to $1.80 annually. Ford not only kept the subsidy in place, he boosted it back up to $2.54 until the end of 2024 when all subsidies are scheduled to end.
In 2023, the PC Party of Ontario received a subsidy of $5.1 million from taxpayers, the NDP received $3.6 million, the Ontario Liberal Party, nearly $3.6 million and the Greens around $700,000. Another $243,000 was paid out to the New Blue Party of Ontario, a party that isn’t represented in the legislature but met the threshold of receiving 2% of all ballots cast in the 2022 campaign.
Do the parties really need this money?
The easy answer is no, and that’s why it needs to stop.
The PC Party raised just shy of $8 million last year, the NDP, $3.2 million, the Liberals claim $3.1 million — higher than the $2.1 million reported to Elections Ontario — and the Greens raised $170,000.
Each party is also sitting on a significant surplus.
The PC Party had $8 million in the bank at the end of 2023; the Liberals, $2.5 million; the NDP, $2.1 million; and the Greens, $525,000.
These parties clearly don’t need money from taxpayers.
Supporters of per-vote subsidies will always claim it is about supporting democracy and taking big money out of politics. The reality is, big money has already been taken out of politics in Ontario.
It has been illegal for the last seven years for companies or unions to donate to a political party. There was a time when both big labour and big business threw their money and weight around in Ontario politics.
In some elections, prior to the ban, unions and union-funded groups would far outspend any single political party.
The current maximum that any single individual can donate is $3,375 per year. Politicians are not changing their votes or their policy positions for a $3,375 donation.
The problem with per-vote subsidies is that it rewards parties based on their past performance, not current performance. If Ford made moves that were wildly unpopular, especially with his voting base, he would hear about it quickly and donations would dry up.
With a guaranteed $5 million per year coming in from taxpayers, he’s less concerned.
Per-vote subsidies always help the party in power most, and not those trying to offer the public an alternative. Parties need to go out and earn your vote to be able to campaign, and they should have to earn your donation, as well.
The per-vote subsidy is scheduled to end on Dec. 31; let’s hope the government sticks to the plan and stops taking our tax dollars to fill party coffers.
LILLEY: Ontario taxpayers paying millions in political party subsidies
Doug Ford promised to end the per-vote subsidy, but years later, taxpayers are still paying big bucks to keep political parties afloat.
Private member's bill would OK removal of misbehaving Ontario councillors
The legislation introduced by NDP Municipal Affairs Critic Jeff Burch on Thursday is bound for a second reading in the legislature, which is now on recess until October.
Author of the article:Blair Crawford
Published Jun 07, 2024 • Last updated 9 hours ago • 3 minute read
Rick Chiarelli was suspended for a total of 450 days by the previous Ottawa city council and forfeited pay of $132,000, though he denied allegations made against him. He did not run for re-election in 2022.
Rick Chiarelli was suspended for a total of 450 days by the previous Ottawa city council and forfeited pay of $132,000, though he denied allegations made against him. He did not run for re-election in 2022.
Misbehaving municipal politicians could find themselves turfed from office under a private member’s bill introduced at Queen’s Park this week.
The bill, tabled by NDP Municipal Affairs Critic Jeff Burch, calls for the creation of an independent board of commissioners to adjudicate claims of workplace violence, harassment and discrimination.
The board could apply penalties to the offender and, in extreme cases, refer the matter for judicial review.
If a judge found the offender “egregiously” failed to comply with the municipality’s harassment policies, he or she could be removed from office.
Two previous attempts by Orléans Liberal MPP Stephen Blais to toughen penalties for misbehaving councillors have failed in the legislature. Emily McIntosh of the advocacy group Women of Ontario Say No is hoping the third time will be a charm.
“If the government wants to demonstrate its support of women’s rights and other marginalized communities, as well as back its ‘tough on crime’ stance — you don’t hold out on legislation to prevent harassment and violence in the workplace,” McIntosh said.
She said Burch’s bill called for a standardized codes of ethics and proper training. One of the bill’s strengths, she said, is that it takes those responsibilities out of council’s hands.
“It’s now a depoliticized process where council does not have a role. If an investigator finds the evidence shows there is, in fact, egregious harassment, it would go straight from an integrity commissioner to judicial review,” McIntosh said. “It means municipal councils are not playing judge and jury on their colleague.”
When Blais’ bills were defeated, the Conservative government said it was planning its own legislation. Initially, Municipal Affairs Minister Paul Calandra promised to have a bill introduced before the summer recess, but in April he conceded that would not happen.
“There’s a lot more work to do on this because, the more I look at this, the more disjointed and fragmented the process is,” Calandra said. “I want to make sure whatever we do is effective and meets the goals that we’re trying to accomplish.”
Premier Doug Ford, meanwhile, says he is opposed to giving anyone other than voters the power to remove a politician from office.
“Ultimately if they want to remove someone, it’s the people,” Ford told reporters during a visit to Ottawa in March. “That’s why we have elections every four years.“
Ottawa council had to grapple with the issue of misbehaviour during its previous term, when the city’s integrity commissioner found that former councillor Rick Chiarelli had sexually harassed multiple female staff members. Under the Municipal Act, the maximum penalty is a 90-day suspension for each count, but there is no power to remove a politician from office. Ultimately, Chiarelli was suspended for a total of 450 days and forfeited pay worth $132,000.
Chiarelli, who adamantly denied any wrongdoing, did not run for re-election in 2022.
McIntosh cited more than a dozen other instances where councillors’ bad behaviour had been documented in municipalities including Barrie, Brampton, Mississauga, Hamilton and Scarborough.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is also urging the province to beef up the law by updating municipal codes of conduct, enacting new, flexible penalties and allowing municipalities to ask the courts to remove a councillor if that was recommended by the integrity commissioner.
The ability to remove a politician from office is key, McIntosh said.
“Without that element, it’s very hard to motivate for compliance. If the government were to pass legislation without that element, then all of this work would be moot.”
Bay Ward Coun. Theresa Kavanagh said Ottawa council was “still reeling” from what happened during its previous term with Chiarelli.
“This is not something that would be used a lot. But it’s important to know that, when you’re a councillor you have responsibility to have that ethical code of your own about how you treat people, particularly your staff,” Kavanagh said.
Burch’s bill is bound for a second reading in the legislature, which is now on recess until October. McIntosh hopes the bill can be further shaped in committee discussions and will eventually be enacted into law.
“We want to work together,” she said. “It’s all about change, creating positive change for good governance across municipalities and ensuring everyone has appropriate workplace protection.”
Our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark our homepage and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed.
torontosun.com
The legislation introduced by NDP Municipal Affairs Critic Jeff Burch on Thursday is bound for a second reading in the legislature, which is now on recess until October.
Author of the article:Blair Crawford
Published Jun 07, 2024 • Last updated 9 hours ago • 3 minute read
Rick Chiarelli was suspended for a total of 450 days by the previous Ottawa city council and forfeited pay of $132,000, though he denied allegations made against him. He did not run for re-election in 2022.
Rick Chiarelli was suspended for a total of 450 days by the previous Ottawa city council and forfeited pay of $132,000, though he denied allegations made against him. He did not run for re-election in 2022.
Misbehaving municipal politicians could find themselves turfed from office under a private member’s bill introduced at Queen’s Park this week.
The bill, tabled by NDP Municipal Affairs Critic Jeff Burch, calls for the creation of an independent board of commissioners to adjudicate claims of workplace violence, harassment and discrimination.
The board could apply penalties to the offender and, in extreme cases, refer the matter for judicial review.
If a judge found the offender “egregiously” failed to comply with the municipality’s harassment policies, he or she could be removed from office.
Two previous attempts by Orléans Liberal MPP Stephen Blais to toughen penalties for misbehaving councillors have failed in the legislature. Emily McIntosh of the advocacy group Women of Ontario Say No is hoping the third time will be a charm.
“If the government wants to demonstrate its support of women’s rights and other marginalized communities, as well as back its ‘tough on crime’ stance — you don’t hold out on legislation to prevent harassment and violence in the workplace,” McIntosh said.
She said Burch’s bill called for a standardized codes of ethics and proper training. One of the bill’s strengths, she said, is that it takes those responsibilities out of council’s hands.
“It’s now a depoliticized process where council does not have a role. If an investigator finds the evidence shows there is, in fact, egregious harassment, it would go straight from an integrity commissioner to judicial review,” McIntosh said. “It means municipal councils are not playing judge and jury on their colleague.”
When Blais’ bills were defeated, the Conservative government said it was planning its own legislation. Initially, Municipal Affairs Minister Paul Calandra promised to have a bill introduced before the summer recess, but in April he conceded that would not happen.
“There’s a lot more work to do on this because, the more I look at this, the more disjointed and fragmented the process is,” Calandra said. “I want to make sure whatever we do is effective and meets the goals that we’re trying to accomplish.”
Premier Doug Ford, meanwhile, says he is opposed to giving anyone other than voters the power to remove a politician from office.
“Ultimately if they want to remove someone, it’s the people,” Ford told reporters during a visit to Ottawa in March. “That’s why we have elections every four years.“
Ottawa council had to grapple with the issue of misbehaviour during its previous term, when the city’s integrity commissioner found that former councillor Rick Chiarelli had sexually harassed multiple female staff members. Under the Municipal Act, the maximum penalty is a 90-day suspension for each count, but there is no power to remove a politician from office. Ultimately, Chiarelli was suspended for a total of 450 days and forfeited pay worth $132,000.
Chiarelli, who adamantly denied any wrongdoing, did not run for re-election in 2022.
McIntosh cited more than a dozen other instances where councillors’ bad behaviour had been documented in municipalities including Barrie, Brampton, Mississauga, Hamilton and Scarborough.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is also urging the province to beef up the law by updating municipal codes of conduct, enacting new, flexible penalties and allowing municipalities to ask the courts to remove a councillor if that was recommended by the integrity commissioner.
The ability to remove a politician from office is key, McIntosh said.
“Without that element, it’s very hard to motivate for compliance. If the government were to pass legislation without that element, then all of this work would be moot.”
Bay Ward Coun. Theresa Kavanagh said Ottawa council was “still reeling” from what happened during its previous term with Chiarelli.
“This is not something that would be used a lot. But it’s important to know that, when you’re a councillor you have responsibility to have that ethical code of your own about how you treat people, particularly your staff,” Kavanagh said.
Burch’s bill is bound for a second reading in the legislature, which is now on recess until October. McIntosh hopes the bill can be further shaped in committee discussions and will eventually be enacted into law.
“We want to work together,” she said. “It’s all about change, creating positive change for good governance across municipalities and ensuring everyone has appropriate workplace protection.”
Our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark our homepage and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed.
Private member's bill would OK removal of misbehaving Ontario councillors
A private member's bill including that new authority was introduced Thursday in the Ontario legislature.
More fingers in the cookie jar shenanigans?
Liberals accused of ‘filibustering’ vote on motion to have Boissonnault witnesses testify — Global News
The ethics committee was suspended for the second time this week as MPs faced off over a motion for cabinet minister Randy Boissonnault’s business associates to testify.
Here's why we can't afford 16 more months of Trudeau in charge
Trudeau is undermining democracy, Freeland is undermining the economy.
Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Jun 10, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read
We are just under 500 days, or a little over 16 months, from being able to throw the Trudeau government out of office. Increasingly, there is a worry that this time frame still gives Justin Trudeau and his team far too much time to inflict further damage.
To say Trudeau and his team are ruining Canada is no exaggeration.
Trudeau is undermining faith in our democracy with his handling of foreign interference while Chrystia Freeland has become a wrecking ball to the economy. All the while, Trudeau’s front bench of other ministers botch the files they have been given, from immigration to housing to defence.
It’s been a week since the report detailing MPs knowingly working with hostile foreign governments was released, and what has Trudeau done? Exactly nothing.
Of course, he’s known about foreign interference in our elections for years and he hasn’t acted. When he was informed of CSIS concerns about Liberal candidate Han Dong during the 2019 election, Trudeau did nothing, let Dong stand as a candidate and then be an active member of the Liberal caucus for nearly four years, and only removed him after media reports.
Han Dong
Han Dong appears as a witness at the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions, Tuesday, April 2, 2024 in Ottawa.
Trudeau admitted at the public inquiry into foreign interference that he didn’t follow up on the Dong allegations even after the election. Our PM, the only party leader with all the information, has been turning a blind eye to foreign interference and actively fighting efforts to bring this issue to the public for years now.
Trudeau’s desire to keep this under wraps raises questions as to why.
Is he guilty of being involved in foreign interference to assist his Liberal party? Is he simply willing to look the other way because his party has benefited? Is there evidence that Trudeau has known about this all along and failed to act?
None of these questions look good for our democracy, but given his track record, they need to be answered.
What will the state of our democratic institutions be if we have another 16 months of dithering on this file from Trudeau? Will the public still have faith that our elections are free and fair, or will voters become like so many in the United States and believe the fix is in regardless of outcome?
We can’t afford to get to that point.
We also can’t afford to allow Freeland to continue to undermine Canada’s economy and fiscal position. She has announced the details of her capital gains tax plan, which will drive away investment, will drive away family doctors and will punish small business owners in addition to families trying to pass down cottages from one generation to the next.
Freeland, though, wants you to believe this is only about making the super-rich pay their fair share.
It’s not. This is about using bad economic policy as wedge politics to try to claim the Conservatives side with the rich while the Liberals side with the everyday Canadian.
Don’t believe the hype.
In addition to saying that we must enact this tax or the peasants will rise up in anger and put democracy at risk, Freeland also said this was about fiscal responsibility. She claimed we need to enact this tax that will bring in just shy of $20 billion over five years rather than pass along debt to future generations.
Due to the size of the debt, and due to Freeland’s poor judgment on debt refinancing, Canada’s public debt charges — that being the interest on the debt — will rise from $47 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year to $64 billion in 2028-29. Over that same time period, the projected deficits will add a combined $208 billion to the national debt, though that figure will likely be higher since Freeland always misses her targets.
In addition to the failings of Freeland and Trudeau, we’ve got ministers like Marc Miller at immigration.
Miller hasn’t been able to get a handle on out-of-control immigration numbers, primarily driven by temporary foreign workers and international students. Last Friday, StatsCan announced the unemployment rate rose to 6.2% despite the economy creating 27,000 jobs because we brought in 97,000 new people last month including 55,000 people who were working age.
The unemployment rate is rising because we are bringing in people faster than we can absorb them, something even Trudeau has said is driving down wages.
Is this really a crew that we can afford to leave in place until October 2025?
Canadians need an election now and they need a change of government.
It’s the only way to clear out the rot in Ottawa.
blilley@postmedia.com
www150.statcan.gc.ca
torontosun.com
Trudeau is undermining democracy, Freeland is undermining the economy.
Author of the article:Brian Lilley
Published Jun 10, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 4 minute read
We are just under 500 days, or a little over 16 months, from being able to throw the Trudeau government out of office. Increasingly, there is a worry that this time frame still gives Justin Trudeau and his team far too much time to inflict further damage.
To say Trudeau and his team are ruining Canada is no exaggeration.
Trudeau is undermining faith in our democracy with his handling of foreign interference while Chrystia Freeland has become a wrecking ball to the economy. All the while, Trudeau’s front bench of other ministers botch the files they have been given, from immigration to housing to defence.
It’s been a week since the report detailing MPs knowingly working with hostile foreign governments was released, and what has Trudeau done? Exactly nothing.
Of course, he’s known about foreign interference in our elections for years and he hasn’t acted. When he was informed of CSIS concerns about Liberal candidate Han Dong during the 2019 election, Trudeau did nothing, let Dong stand as a candidate and then be an active member of the Liberal caucus for nearly four years, and only removed him after media reports.
Han Dong
Han Dong appears as a witness at the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions, Tuesday, April 2, 2024 in Ottawa.
Trudeau admitted at the public inquiry into foreign interference that he didn’t follow up on the Dong allegations even after the election. Our PM, the only party leader with all the information, has been turning a blind eye to foreign interference and actively fighting efforts to bring this issue to the public for years now.
Trudeau’s desire to keep this under wraps raises questions as to why.
Is he guilty of being involved in foreign interference to assist his Liberal party? Is he simply willing to look the other way because his party has benefited? Is there evidence that Trudeau has known about this all along and failed to act?
None of these questions look good for our democracy, but given his track record, they need to be answered.
What will the state of our democratic institutions be if we have another 16 months of dithering on this file from Trudeau? Will the public still have faith that our elections are free and fair, or will voters become like so many in the United States and believe the fix is in regardless of outcome?
We can’t afford to get to that point.
We also can’t afford to allow Freeland to continue to undermine Canada’s economy and fiscal position. She has announced the details of her capital gains tax plan, which will drive away investment, will drive away family doctors and will punish small business owners in addition to families trying to pass down cottages from one generation to the next.
Freeland, though, wants you to believe this is only about making the super-rich pay their fair share.
It’s not. This is about using bad economic policy as wedge politics to try to claim the Conservatives side with the rich while the Liberals side with the everyday Canadian.
Don’t believe the hype.
In addition to saying that we must enact this tax or the peasants will rise up in anger and put democracy at risk, Freeland also said this was about fiscal responsibility. She claimed we need to enact this tax that will bring in just shy of $20 billion over five years rather than pass along debt to future generations.
Due to the size of the debt, and due to Freeland’s poor judgment on debt refinancing, Canada’s public debt charges — that being the interest on the debt — will rise from $47 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year to $64 billion in 2028-29. Over that same time period, the projected deficits will add a combined $208 billion to the national debt, though that figure will likely be higher since Freeland always misses her targets.
In addition to the failings of Freeland and Trudeau, we’ve got ministers like Marc Miller at immigration.
Miller hasn’t been able to get a handle on out-of-control immigration numbers, primarily driven by temporary foreign workers and international students. Last Friday, StatsCan announced the unemployment rate rose to 6.2% despite the economy creating 27,000 jobs because we brought in 97,000 new people last month including 55,000 people who were working age.
The unemployment rate is rising because we are bringing in people faster than we can absorb them, something even Trudeau has said is driving down wages.
Is this really a crew that we can afford to leave in place until October 2025?
Canadians need an election now and they need a change of government.
It’s the only way to clear out the rot in Ottawa.
blilley@postmedia.com
The Daily — Labour Force Survey, May 2024
Employment was little changed in May (+27,000; +0.1%) and the employment rate fell 0.1 percentage points to 61.3%.
LILLEY: Here's why we can't afford 16 more months of Trudeau in charge
The Trudeau government is ruining Canada, it will take a long time to repair the damage, we can't wait 16 more months.
There’s really nothing that can be done until an election is called, and then you vote…& wait…& see what happens…
That’s for the average Canadian voter. Can anyone else do anything? Maybe.
The NDP, in their confidence and supply agreement (the non-coalition coalition that’s definitely not a coalition-type coalition)…if they decide to drop this agreement, can potentially bring an election much sooner…but what would it take for that to happen? Here we are.
Regardless of when an election federally happens next in Canada, hopefully Canadian voters will have a memory of more than the last six weeks…when they make their choice and put their “X” in a box on their ballot. Only time will tell.
Well, you can scream "True Dope is a DISASTER and must be turfed out of office NOW!" on a daily basis until the election. One way to make a paycheck, I guess.
Just trying to drag out the average Canadian memory for more than six weeks.
Well, don't try the Toronto Sun. They already got a True Dope Whimperer.
There’s only a handful of us now that come to play in the sandlot here…. But I’m assuming, especially if an election eventually gets called, that we will get a lot of hits from Google…so this is almost a public service.
Or, we could do like the liberals in the US do......Riot, loot, burn buildings and murder until we get our way.
Yeah, I guess you are right. Although, there was little destruction, no fires and just one murder.....by a Capital police person.