The problem with Crying Wolf or, in a modern Canadian context, declaring everything the Harper government does as the End of the World, is that people stop listening to you altogether. This seems to be the case with the Left-of-Centre political & media class in Canada.
Now the Tories are bringing in Bill C-51 aka the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. Its possible infringements into the privacy of Canadians does offer some legitimate pause for concern. Lorrie Goldstein offers a fairly balanced appraisal of the changes.
What say you?
h/t Several SDA commenters
I’m against any growth in the size or power of government.
We need to restore the rights of individuals, we need to lay waste to most of the tens of thousands of laws and regulations that exist merely to ensnare whoever dares to draw the attention of government bureaucrats, and we need to severely shrink the size of government.
This law not only opens the door to abuse by law enforcement, but every geek employed by your ISP would be snooping for local/provincial/national gossip and stock tips to use however they see fit. WikiLeaks on steroids.
Think of the Social Insurance Number;
what it was allegedly designed for: applying for government benefits.
NOW, you can’t do anything without it.
You can’t open a bank or investment account.
It’s a MASTER number, um, SLAVE number now.
Our master-tracking number.
NOW, you can receive a letter, 3 years later, that you forgot to report $3.56 of interest at your credit union.
When Nock wrote, Our Enemy, The State he wasn’t referring to the Dems or Repubs or CPC or NDP or LPC.
Check out this article from The Vancouver Province on November 23, 2011. It is about COPS watching PORN on COP PCs while on duty. They all signed a document saying they would NOT misuse the cop PCs. Lets give these guys even MORE power!!!
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Cops+watched+porn+skipped+work+instead+investigating+missing+women+Galliford/5752470/story.html#ixzz1mZldps00
I agree entirely with what Oz wrote at 12:08 PM.
“*note to Harper regime:
George Orwell’s 1984 in NOT a How To manual.
Posted by: Oz at February 16, 2012 12:08 PM”
If Vic Toews had ANY integrity he would apologize to all Canadians and resign, and NOT take any of “his” obscene pension.
If Harper had ANY integrity he would apologize to all Canadians and accept Toews resignation, and NOT GIVE him any obscene pension.
This is why I support conservative ideas and people and not get into blindly supporting some party that happens to have conservative in it’s name. This bill is a progressive big government bill. And then to SILENCE opposition this “conservative” says if we don’t support it then we support child pornography?! Total progressive. Since the twitter feed in question is in the news you can find it at @vikileaks30
I am in agreement.
Call off your attack dogs conservatives of Canada. They won’t listen to the majority of us, but they ought to listen to their base. You guys elected them after all.
Get rid of this terrible piece of legislation.
Now we have to know more about FINTRAC .
I do not support this bill ,but I also don’t like hearing all of you whining about it do you not listen to sun news Vic TOEWS has stated they cannot do anything with out a warrant ,not to mention Harper has also stated that they will make amendments where necessary ,and will also make sure our rights to privacy are not infringed upon …listen to sun news today they are talking about it all day … I let my mp and Harper know my concerned what about you what have you done besides cry in this thread……?
A lot of people have swallowed leftist internet kook mythology whole heartidly on this one. How is providing to the police your ip addresses, phone number, email adress, and name without a warrant a violation of your privacy exactly? BTW that information can’t be obtained via a warrant since you need it to get a warrant. This is equivalent of the police looking in the phone book to find out who’s name belongs to what phone number. How is that scary?
I really encourage people to read this bill before listening to luminaries like Justin Trudeau on the matter.
I believe strongly in privacy rights, and in freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. etc., but the level of hysterical pandering, misinformation, and outright *lying* about this bill sets a precedent that’s far more concerning than the actual contents of the bill. Anyone is free to oppose – and to express their unhappiness with, and to critique – any bill whatsoever, but opposition should be based on the *actual contents* of the bills. In this case, various opposition MPs and news outlets have been willfully and mindfully peddling misinformation and straight-up lies for partisan political reasons, and now it seems like almost *everybody* is taking at face value this inflamed “I seen somethin’ in the woodshed..” pandering.
The most disgustingly egregious bald-assed lie being suggestively peddled by news outlets like CTV, and now treated as *fact* by thousand of blog commenters, is that C–51 would allow the government and law enforcement agencies to spy on internet users and intercept their data without a warrant. For example,
The proposed bill would allow absolutely nothing of the sort:
Another outright lie I’ve seen widely peddled as “fact” is that internet providers, including small ones in remote regions with only a handful of customers, will be tasked with the financially onerous requirement of installing equipment to preserve the browsing history of all their subscribers:
I’d like to make it clear that I’m not arguing in favour of the bill — I have no idea whether it’s a ‘necessary tool’ or not — I just find it troubling when people are almost unanimously inflamed because of bald-assed lies peddled by partisan scaremongerers and addle-pated talking-head journalists (CTV in particular has been almost apoplexy-inducing) who can’t even be bothered to take twenty minutes to research the “information” that they’re peddling, perhaps because they so enjoy the “Scary-Harper-Neocon-Fascist” meme.
Oh well — chalk one up for the MSM.
@EBD
thank you I said that same thing just above your post . And the people in here have swallowed this fear mngering hook line and sinker.
Shame on you sda commenters.
I am shocked . Watch sun news network.
Why would the authorities want to spy on law-abiding citizens when they know full-well who the bad guys are? Warrant-less searches for warrant-less charges?
EBD, in all fairness here Vic Toews seriously screwed up by using the rhetoric he did. But what’s surprising me is that rational conservatives are actually listening to the CBC, CTV and Justin Trudeau as if they know anything or tell the truth.
From the commies over at SunTV-
“And yet, the Conservatives are happy to pass into law a bill that includes this: When a telecom services provider is presented with a written request from a cop, a spy or a bureaucrat – remember, no judge will be involved – “every telecommunications service provider must provide the (requester) with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.”
If this was the NDP the same slobbering sycophants for the CPC would be screaming from the rooftops…Conservative jackboot doesn’t taste any better than lefty jackboot.
Oops, did I go off reservation there?
Disgusting that you would become like the leftards, claiming people just aren’t listening to to the “right” voices.
re: Texalberta
1) police already ask for that information (name, address, telephone) from isps and receive it most of the time with no warrant.
2) They couldn’t get a warrant for that information because they don’t have the contact information… which they are asking for… it’s a catch 22
3) What exactly is the violation of privacy in having police officers know your contact information?
4) With this legistlation, police will now have to file paperwork when they ask for contact information and this is reported to police management. Right now they don’t report on any of this information.
5) Section 184.4 (enacted 1985) is being replaced with a more limited scope to say that the police must believe an offence is about to be committed instead of an unlawful act.
So all in all this legislation has more checks and balances than what exists right now today. If the NDP put forward this legislation I would read it instead of swallowing leftist MSM spewing garbage who would be cheer leading it.
If that bill is similar (or the same) as ACTA I am definitely against it.
I think that some of the provision of the bill may have unintended consequences even if the thoughts behind the bill are good
I believe situation is somewhat similar to the situation concerning Human Rights Watch, Canada — the original intentions were laudable, realization stinks.
Thank you James as well mr Harper has made it clear that this bill not infringe upon personal privacy and also Vic TOEWS has stated that the police cannot do anything unless they obtain a warrant plain and simple.
You all call yourselves conservatives but your not you whine your never happy with anything . Spoiled brats I say.
After hearing about the latest ammendments I’m kind of divided on this one.
I wish the NDP’s Charlie Angus would explain what he means by “every Canadian will essentially be carrying an electronic prisoner’s bracelet” in reference to how Police can track citizens with this new bill. Others have expressed that it can be used to track the movements of journalists, etc.
Did Angus mean that information such as name, E-mail address, IP number, etc. would allow Police to track peoples’ movements — in real time — using GPS technology on their cell phones and laptops, et cetera?
Any techies out there know precisely what Angus was referring to, or how this sort of tracking would be facilitated technologically re: the bill? Or have Angus et al simply been watching too many fictional “CSI” episodes.
I’d really like to know as an amateur techie myself and I think it would clarify things for a lot of people.
Thanks EBD for that.
On one hand this bill does have the appearance of being an expansion of a police state intrusion.
If what james says at 4:56 is correct that would explain why the Liberals and NDP are opposed to the bill as they have never since Trudeau’s time been opposed to an expansion of police state powers.
xiat, I would really scrutinize anything the Liberal partisan Dan Gardner says.
“EBD, in all fairness here Vic Toews seriously screwed up by using the rhetoric he did.” – James, 4:41 PM
I couldn’t agree more. In the past, whenever the Liberals and the NDP averred that Conservative opposition to one of their policy proposals was “proof” that the Conservatives are “against children” or are “anti-woman,” it always struck me as morally repulsive; Toews’ suggestion that anyone who opposes for any reason, or has concerns about, the bill is “on the side of child pornographers” is actually far worse, the cheap, intellectually dishonest act of a pandering bully.
On those rare occasions when I’ve at least half understood critics’s points about the unpleasant, bullying nature of some members of this government, it’s always been Toews at the center of it. More to the point here, though – and speaking as a strong Conservative supporter – his stupid, bullying accusation did the opposition – and the media party – a HUGE favour, because it deflected attention away from the fact that they were standing up and *LYING* in the HOC – pandering to the cameras for the sake of providing television broadcast snippets – and getting away with it. Opposition MP Charlie Angus, for example, stood up and said:
A complete, bald-faced lie, and Angus *knew it* while he was delivering it. The substance of Toews’ reply —
— should have been the salient point in this “debate”, and might have been if he could just have curbed his apparently unstoppable urge to be a po-faced, bullying asshole.
P.S. Here’s NDP MP Françoise Boivin, under the bright TV lights in the HOC:
Idiots. Pandering, willfully dishonest idiots.
It is mind boggling that after killing the Wheat Board, the gun gegistry and passing second reading on C-304 to repeal Section 13 of the CHRA – each a small but important first step to unwinding 70 years of Liberal over-reach, the Conservatives would choose C-30 as a hill upon which to die.
We have laws in place to deal with hate, child porn and illegal gun use – we don’t need tribunals, administrative action and registries to harass law abiding citizens – we do need the police to stop checking for seatbelts and texting while driving and start looking for bad guys.
Hopefully the Conservatives will table C-30 for discussion and let it die in peace.
In the introduction to the bill it is stated that the bill allows to ratify ACTA i.e. convention on cybercrime.
Presently there is wide-spread discussion in Europe on ACTA.
The discussions regarding ratification of ACTA started in Poland last year.
As a result of discussions couple of European countries refused to ratify that convention. (Hungary, Czech Republic and some other east European countries + presently Germany + Holand).
I am absolutely against signing ACTA.It allows not only government but also corporations too much power over the citizens.
Even if bill itself does not say it the ratification of ACTA will empower the government and the corporations to act against citizens without judicial orders, on the say so (i.e. accusations) of major companies. It will prevent access to information on the internet. It will put international law over the law of the country.
Once again, the bill itself seems innocuous, but the problem is that if that bill will pass Canada will ratify ACTA. And that is the major problem with the said bill.
@EBD, good stuff.
But I’m still curious about Angus’ comments alluding to how the bill could be applied to technologically track peoples’ MOVEMENTS. Also, Ezra Levant had a guest on SUN last night who stated a similar concern — journalists’ movements could be tracked, and Ezra appeared to agree with him.
How could this happen — with GPS tracking? Anybody know whether this argument is technologically sound?
(This is beyond the “warrant” argument which I think has been satisfactorily resolved).
@ella
Plus this ACTA thing is another issue and news to me. Actually, there are already cases of Webmasters acting on unproven accusations from anonymous sources and shutting down content. I’ve had that experience, although after raising a lot of hell I got my service restored.
I hope the Bill doesn’t have the potential to codify that kind of arbitrary action by corporations etc.
ricardo, charlie angus was pandering to the empty headed j-schoolers.
The police right now today can track your movements with no warrant needed. They simply follow you around. They do it all the time, it’s called surveillance.
The only warrantless powers this bill gives the police is to demand isps to give up your contact information which they currently get voluntarily most of the time.
Of course this is a hypocritical stance by the loony left, they love all things totalitarian when they believe they are the masters and everyone else is the slave.
The point is that the Canadian police have more than enough power over the people without adding more to their arsenals in this country. This bill expands power with no obvious or at least well explained advantage to catching criminals while protecting the privacy of honest citizens. Even an ounce more for the pseudo military RCMP of this country is too much.
As a conservative/ libertarian I voiced out against the Long Gun Registry, the CHRC & section 13, along with any other useless expansion of government and police powers. I will also do so against this bill. It would be hypocritical to not oppose it.
Tyranny creeps up in incremental steps, via one small regulation tacked onto another small regulation. A day may come that the Liberal / NDP socialist parties of Canada take charge. If and when that day ever comes I want them defanged as much as possible from wherever we sit on the totalitarian scale today.
@james: “ricardo, charlie angus was pandering to the empty headed j-schoolers.”
So was Levant and his libertarian guest on SUN also pandering to the empty headed j-schoolers?
I’m not saying either are right, just be nice to hear from a techie…
james >
“The only warrantless powers this bill gives the police is to demand isps to give up your contact information which they currently get voluntarily most of the time”
Obviously then it’s just a waste of time and a useless expansion of regulation and bureaucracy. So why bother, we shouldn’t need it.
Ricardo (6:24), the police are already allowed track peoples’ movements by attaching a tracking device to a vehicle, provided that they have a warrant. Under the new provisions they could also attach the device to, say, a briefcase or a backpack, but they would not only still require judicial authorization, i.e. a warrant, but they would have to meet a more stringent standard to obtain the warrant:
“A warrant to track the movements of a thing (would be) based on the existing standard, reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been or will be committed, while a more stringent standard (would apply) to a warrant to track the movements of an individual: the existence of reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been or will be committed.”
The salient word throughout is “warrant.” The journalist that Ezra was talking to could only be tracked by police, just as before, if they can get a judge to sign a warrant authorizing them to do so, so there’s no change whatsoever in that regard.
The whole bill is really just a matter of updating and fine-tuning details of currently existing laws, and not some wholesale imposition of a surveillance state, CTV/CBC coverage and opposition shrieking notwithstanding.
@EBD,
Thanks, but I guess I should be more specific:
A cell phone or a portable laptop connected to the Internet is already a potential “tracking device”, and you already have it on your person — cops don’t need to “put it there” with a warrant.
My question is will you lose your anonymity using these devices with the new Bill, and can that in turn be used to track your movements without a warrant. Sort of a borderline issue because it’s not as if the cops actually “bugged” you — you bugged yourself!
(And I still don’t have a clue if that’s the tech issue that either Angus or Levant and his guest were referring to).
🙂
Newsflash. Vikileaks IP is from inside Parliament. Some say good old Vik, others say F*ck Old Vik…http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Vikileaks30%2Blinked%2BHouse%2BCommons%2Baddress/6165497/story.html
ricardo
From what I know the problem with ACTA – (and ACTA will be legally binding in Canada if bill C-51 will be ratified)- is connected with the freedom of the Internet.
That means that if anybody accuse you of copyright infringement (and that is not only connected to downloading movies from the internet, but also to access to the information on the internet) the police will be able to get accused person computer, or the ISP will be able to block internet access before the legal proceeding will start. They will be able to do it before legal warrant, i.e. it will be preventative action.
Further from what I know one point of copyright infringement laws in ACTA is that the accusation of infringement can be legally submitted only by large organizations, businesses or associations not by private citizens, even if large company infringed on private citizen.
That is only one example what ACTA can do
. Discussions in Brussels on ACTA were taking place during closed sessions, and some of the finer points of the bill were not discussed at all.
ISPs and telcos provide subscriber data without a warrant 95 percent of the time, there is a huge information disclosure issue with no reporting and no oversight. Conservatives like EBD seem to have no problem with that and seem supportive of expanding and legalizing it. Perhaps this is the discussion we should be having. Why the hell are police allowed access to subscriber data in the first place without a warrant.Last time I looked, police needed a warrant to access your phone records, but yet some here have no problem with police having access to your Internet activities records without first getting a warrant from a judge. How are your Internet communications to another entity where you have the same reasonable expectation of privacy any different then a phone conversation? If anyone can explain that one to me, then I would surely agree with EBD. This is another expansion of Police power, that I guarantee, will be abused in the future.
ricardo
The problem of anonymity on the internet is ……that there is no anonymity.
Newest google rules say that if you use google then you are giving google right to put all your data in one, virtual, place. In fact, you give control of all your data to google. That means that if there is an accusation against you, it will be much easier for the government or private organization to get access to all your data on the internet. Also, it will be easier to block your access to the internet.
As for ACTA —— presently according to law you are not guilty until the jury/judge says you are guilty.
On the other hand ACTA says you are guilty until you unquestionably show to the accusing entity that you are not guilty.
“ISPs and telcos provide subscriber data without a warrant 95 percent of the time”
Northernot
Where did you get THIS info from? I am quite sure that you are wrong.
“What exactly is the violation of privacy in having police officers know your contact information? ”
Um. Seriously? If you can’t see why that isn’t a violation of privacy then maybe you shouldn’t talk about C-30 at all.
I find it hilarious that the CPC-soldiers (who are surprisingly few) claim that some critics of C-30 are lying and, as proof, point to the pure and honest words of Saint Toews or Pontiff Harper. Yeah. I’ll totally trust one set of politicians over another. I was born yesterday.
FACT: C-30 will force ISPs to collect data on you that can be hacked by hackers and requested by cops at any time. That is the bill.
One more thing I have to add.
I believe that the fact that police can look at the data is not a problem. (I think) that if police do not have warrant they can not ACT or USE that data in legal proceedings.
However the fact that police can look at the data will become the problem if the law will change from the one assuming that you are innocent to the one assuming you are guilty.
LAS
I find it hilarious that you (nearly)equate hackers and cops and forget about unions.
You do know that some provision of the bills will also be for the benefit of the unions, don’t you?
“…but yet some here have no problem with police having access to your Internet activities records without first getting a warrant from a judge.” — northenont, 8:48 PM.
Read the bill. They would *require a warrant* even to obtain transmission data, which “provides information on the routing but does not include the content of a private communication.”
Man, the misinformation about this bill has a life of its own…
Read the bill LAS. You are swallowing MSM/libdipper talking points whole. The bill specifically requires warrants. And Northernot, yes the police ask for contact information from ISPs for suspect ip addresses now and often get the information but there is no oversight which is what this law specifically addresses.
Just remember, someday the Conservatives will be defeated and the lib-lefties will be in charge of implementation. That worries me.
David Akin sums it up: “When a telecom services provider is presented with a written request from a cop, a spy or a bureaucrat – remember, no judge will be involved – “every telecommunications service provider must provide the (requester) with identifying information in the service provider’s possession or control respecting the name, address, telephone number and electronic mail address of any subscriber to any of the service provider’s telecommunications services and the Internet protocol address and local service provider identifier that are associated with the subscriber’s service and equipment.” -so it’s ‘only’ the address, ISP# identity stuff that can be accessed without a warrant.
The actual content WILL be collected automatically but a warrant to get it. That’s still far too invasive. The cops round up child pornographers regularly. They don’t need this legislation.
James
there are TWO bills.
One C-30 other C-51
EBD – I do not think you READ the bill
For example:
Information in electronic form may be easily and quickly destroyed or altered. Clause 13 of the bill therefore adds a new investigative tool to the Code to preserve this type of evidence, which may take one of two forms: a preservation demand or a preservation order. A preservation demand is made by a peace officer (new s. 487.012 of the Code), while a preservation order is made by a judge, on application by a peace officer (new s. 487.013 of the Code).
Hate propaganda offences must be committed against an “identifiable group.” Clause 4 of the bill adds “national origin” to the definition of “identifiable group.”8
Clause 5 of the bill provides that the offences of public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred may be committed by any means of communication and include making hate material available, by creating a hyperlink that directs web surfers to a website where hate material is posted, for example.
(So if I have a link to other site which has among other useful materials also hate materials I will be responsible?)
Under the existing provisions of the Code, only spreading or attempting to spread a computer virus9 constitutes an offence.10 In accordance with the requirements of the Convention on Cybercrime,11 Clause 10 of the bill makes it illegal to possess a computer virus for the purpose of committing mischief, and also makes it an offence to import and make available a computer virus.
(so if I don’t know that I have computer virus or trojan someone may accuse me of distributing it ?)
A preservation demand or order directs a person, such as a telecommunications service provider (TSP), to preserve “computer data”13 that is “in their possession or control”14 when they receive the demand or order. However, a TSP may still voluntarily preserve data and provide it to a law enforcement agency, even where there is no demand or order (new s. 487.0195 of the Code).
Clause 13 of the bill creates new specific production orders, issuance of which is based on the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been or will be committed, which allow a peace officer to obtain two types of information from a TSP:21 “transmission data” (new s. 487.016 of the Code) and “tracking data” (new s. 487.017 of the Code).22
So what are you talking about EBD???
Oh, something else is interesting:
2.3.1 Searches by the Commissioner of Competition (Clause 28)
The bill provides that the production orders for obtaining banking information, transmission data or tracking data described in the Criminal Code may be used by Canadian authorities who receive assistance requests from their international partners.
(that means much closer cooperation in some areas so in theory it is good, but not only criminal/terrorist areas but also criminal areas related to new law on copyright infringement)
ella >
“Hate propaganda offences must be committed against an “identifiable group.” Clause 4 of the bill adds “national origin” to the definition of “identifiable group.”8”
Sounds a little broad doesn’t it.
So what constitutes hate propaganda these days, and who ultimately decides? Now we can just sweep everyone’s inbox/ outbox for Mohammed cartoons and selectively arrest the flavour of the day.
@EBD ISPs and telecom companies are already complying with law enforcement requests roughly 95 percent of the time, at issue are a relatively small number of cases that to date have required warrants prior to any disclosure, the so called 5%. Are you implying now that this new bill is actually reducing police powers by requiring some oversight for what the police now get without a warrant 95% of the time. Not only Police but CSIS will be granted these new warrantless powers. How pervs affect national security is beyond me. Don’t believe me, read the Interpretations section at the beginning of the Act, just below the real name of this Act. Listen, this bill hopes to legalize a practice in place already, that should have been illegal in the first place. That is why police want it so bad. To me, that is the issue here. Why are we not having a national discussion on that. This bill stinks, and no amount of sugar coating will make it smell any better.
Knigth 99
Exactly.
I also “liked” the definition of communicating:
communicating” means communicating by any means and includes making available,
Includes “making available”?
******
When I first read about ACTA on European website I though its opponents are demonizing it and exaggerate. Later I’ve read couple of good articles on it and was convinced that it is in fact a co-ordinated attempt to control internet and western citizens.
ISPs and telcos provide subscriber data without a warrant 95 percent of the time
No they don’t. Ask your ISP and find out for yourself what their warrant-less disclosure policy is. Mine doesn’t, yours shouldn’t either.
The only solution is to start running ones searches through various anonymizers and run tor on ones computers to facilitate other people’s anonymity. The whole “for the children” argument is sounding a lot like what hoplophobes put out.
The mere possession of child pron should not be illegal. The Canadian Alliance support for this law in 1999 was one of the reasons I tore up my membership and sent it back to Stockwell Day. This act was the initial foot in the door for statists to get their paws on peoples computers. They figured that no-one would guess their agenda as very few people will stand in support of pedophiles. What we’re talking about here is a series of bytes on a disk drive — quite a long way from that and actual child molestation.
I recall writing a letter back then where I mentioned that there was effective treatment for pedophiles consisting of application of a shotgun barrel to the pedophiles genitals from 2″. The only dispute was on the size of shot one needed to get optimal treatment results.
This legislation has mushroomed into the statist hell that we now have and I plan on using every technologic trick I know of to screw up the statists. Running a tor node means I might be facilitating terrorist communications but I consider N. American statists to be far more of a danger to modern civilization than some 7th century goat f&*king peasants.
If the warrantless search provisions of C68 are still in effect I’ll be letting PMSH know that he can’t expect my support in the next election. He’s supposed to be removing statist powers, not increasing them to be abused by the next socialist government. Just like Obozo abused and expanded the totalitarian powers brought in by Bush with the full support of the MSM.
It’s all about controlling the internet, the clownservatives can dress it up all they want, but that’s what it’s really about.
When ACTA gets shoved down our throats, for our own good of course, the people like paul in calgary can rejoice at the new fascism…same as the old fascism.
It’s just “different” when they do it.
Mulroney/GST, now this kind of “improved” police powers…rolling my freakin’ eyes…
Every time Conservatives get a majority it’s a race to see how fast they can squander it.
I’ll vote for a bail of hay before I vote for this party again.
At least the slimy left doesn’t pretend, they’re up front with their plans for destroying our rights.
It makes one rather nauseous to listen to rightists spin circles trying to tell us that everything is OK..just lie back, and think of Canada.