Democracy: elect people who have the authority to deliberate and decide on legislation. Allow freedom of assembly, association and expression. Freedom of ideas. If there are different ideas, we can debate, discuss and decide. I heard these words, almost verbatim, on a news channel. It was Justin Trudeau speaking before the EU Parliament. I could not believe it! Here in Canada, it’s just words. Trudeau has forced Jagmeet Singh to capitulate and turn his 25 NDP members liberal. A parity union that gives Trudeau the majority government that he so longed for when calling his elections due to the pandemic. Trudeau said in the last election that ‘the people have spoken’. In fact, we have. Enough voters for the Liberals, enough MPs elected to give Trudeau a minority. Where legislation gets to be debated, with majority party approval required. Not anymore. I am conservative, with conservative ideas like managing expenses and income streams; the budget will not handle itself by investing in business expansion, not by raising tax rates on them. But for Trudeau, any idea that doesn’t fit into his master plan is considered toxic and needs to save us from ourselves. Therefore, we will have no voice. Coming? Endless spending, unstoppable inflation, increased carbon and other taxes. Pushing all the legislation they want. Remember Bill C-10, which controls Internet content? Tax their houses? Little did I realize that these were going to be the “sunny paths” that we were all promised.
(With so many failings, we are still scratching our heads at how supportive Trudeau is. He presided over a “woken” government that is far more interested in photographs than actual economic policy for Canadians.)
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT
Jim Hunt, deceased toronto sun writer, he loved to start a column with the word “something to think about”. I think Jim would have loved this “muse”. On April 2, a letter to the editor was written about how upset the writer was with the Peel District School Board’s decision to drop Sir John A. Macdonald from a school’s name (“John down”). Sir J, he believes, was the Father of the Confederacy. But if the writer were to read in the same article in “Today in History” the following: “In 1873, the government of Sir John A. Macdonald was accused of accepting a $350,000 bribe from Montreal businessman Sir Hugh Allan for the contract to build the transcontinental railroad. The Pacific scandal would force Macdonald to resign in October of that year. Also, the editor’s response at the end of the letter: “It was a short-sighted and pathetic decision. Shameful. Wouldn’t it be better to teach about our history and put the role of various leaders in context?” That said, if everything about Macdonald was known, do you think his name would be suggested for a school name? One could say that he could be called the Father of the Confederacy, but I think a better title would be “Father of Confederate Political Corruption.” I think “we” would agree, “we” would not. Something to ponder. Thanks, Jim Hunt, for the good memories.
Saint Louis Rum
(But erasing their name from the building or taking down their statues does nothing)