Connect with us


Election 2017, Advance Polls open this Saturday. North/South inequality a surprise to some but not all.


17 minute read

The big issue facing the candidates in a multitude of ways is the North/South inequality in regards to investment, education, recreation, youth, air quality to name but a few. Some show doubts but will let me know that I was right.
I found out that 31% of the population of Red Deer live north of the river. A number that is significant because in 1985 40% lived north of the river.
Years ago the north side residents voted for a slate of north side candidates. We have 8 councillors and 1 mayor so we should have 3 members from the north but for many years we have had only 1, Frank Wong.
31% of the residents represent only 17.6% of the candidates.
Candidates living north of the river are:
Mayor: Sean Burke,
Councillors: Jason Habuza, Kris Maciborsky, Vesna Higham, Frank Wong, Sandra Bergeron, Matt Chapin, Bobbi McCoy
Public School Board: Bev Manning, Matt Chapin
Separate School Board; No Name.
Now if none of these names draw your fancy you might consider Tanya Handley which supports building the Aquatic Centre north of 11A to kick start development.
Michael Dawe for acknowledging the issue and putting their plight into words.
I cannot give a true picture of all 51 candidates. If we were a big city and was broken into 4 wards it would be easier to know your candidates and they would be more aware of the issues.
I am always surprised when candidates and even local residents are amazed after being apprised of the following information. They are not secrets, they are widely known in national news stories, human interest articles and polls, and used in marketing tools by other cities and corporations.
Remember 31% of Red Deer’s residents live north of the river and they have the G.H.Dawe Community Centre developed in the 70s and built in the 80s.
Two thirds of Red Deer’s residents live south of the river and they have the Downtown Recreation Centre, Michener Aquatic Centre, Downtown Arena, Centrium, Collicutt Recreation Centre, Pidherney Curling Centre, Kinex Arena, Kinsmen Community Arenas, Red Deer Curling Centre, and the under-construction Gary W. Harris Centre. The city is also talking about replacing the downtown recreation centre with an expanded 50m pool. Tanya Handley says she will not support this as she thinks it should be built north of 11a.
North of 11a. Thousands of acres up for development, and a 100 acre lake.
I have been talking about Hazlett Lake. Red Deer’s largest lake, located north of the river, north of Hwy 11a because it is up for development. It is a diamond in the rough, with potential that is being ignored at our cost. Lethbridge turned a slough into a lake becoming Henderson Park, a tourist attraction and they were the 5th fastest growing city in Canada, and they are only slightly smaller than Red Deer now and could overtake Red Deer this year.
Red Deer has a lake that the current council wants to wrap with residential and industrial land. The city wants to spend a cool hundred million turning the downtown recreation centre into an aquatic centre. Why not build an Aquatic Centre on a lake? Highly visible from Hwy 2.
The Gary W. Harris centre will be visible from Hwy 2, as is the sports Hall of Fame, as is Hazlett Lake.
If Lethbridge can turn a slough into a tourist attraction why can’t Red Deer turn a lake into a tourist attraction.
Hazlett Lake is about the same distance from the Riverlands development as the Collicutt Centre is from the Riverlands.
The Collicutt Centre came about because the city decided that with 55,000 residents the city needed a 4th recreational centre. It also spurred development in the south east and now 60% of the residents use it.
The development north of 11a would bring the total population north of the river to 55,000 (if we stop the exodus of residents,) but there are no plans for a 2nd recreation centre let alone a 4th north of the river.
There is also no plan, no discussion to stem the outward migration in Red Deer. I sense that the bias against the north is so deep, so entrenched that they do not worry about it.
Lethbridge and Red Deer have similar size population in the same province. Lethbridge is the 5th fastest growing city in Canada and grew by almost 2% per year, while Red Deer shrank by 1% last year.
Lethbridge took a man made slough and turned it into a multi-faceted tourist attraction, while Red Deer will turn a lake into a residential subdivision.
So why I am I suggesting Lethbridge turned lead into gold and Red Deer might be turning gold into lead. Let us look at what Lethbridge did with a man-made slough then look at what Red Deer will do with a lake.
Henderson Lake Park Henderson Lake Park is one of Lethbridge’s premier parks featuring a 24 hectare (59 acre)man made lake, mature trees and groves, gardens, picnic shelters, playgrounds and over 7 km of trails.
Whether you’re a family with small children, an exercise or sports enthusiast, a non-motorized boating enthusiast, a fisherman, a horticulturists, or someone simply looking to get out for a walk this park is definitely for you.
The lake is perfect for kayaks, canoes and paddle boats alike and provides easy access to the water via the boat launch and dock. The dock is often used by fishermen looking to catch Pike, Perch or Whitefish (provincial fishing regulations apply).
For the nature, exercise, and history enthusiasts there is a 2.5 km trail around the lake and another 4.3 km trail around the perimeter of the park providing ample opportunity for one to stretch their legs, check out all of the local wildlife, or view the commemorative and historical markers and displays located throughout the park. There are also great little areas for you to put down a blanket and enjoy a good book, have a picnic or simply relax and watch the world as it goes by.
Henderson Park is also home to the Demonstration and Rose Gardens. The Rose Garden is located in the northwest corner of the park and commemorates 9/11. The Demonstration Gardens are located east of the Tennis Courts and celebrates the contributions of Communities in Bloom to the Community.
Henderson Park is surrounded by a multitude of facilities like the SLP Skate Park, Henderson Horseshoe Pits, the Henderson Lake Golf Course, the Henderson Outdoor Pool, Spitz Stadium, Henderson Park Ice Centre, Henderson Tennis Courts and Nikka Yuko Japanese Garden.
Henderson Park has something to offer absolutely everyone and there isn’t a day where you won’t see families, exercise enthusiasts, seniors, people out exercising their dogs, fishermen, boaters, golfers, and just about everyone else under the sun out enjoying this wonderful park. From the photographic opportunities to the areas for quiet solitude and reflection to the exuberant playgrounds, to the trail system that is linked to the rest of the south side, this park is sure to meet everyone’s needs.
Hazlett Lake Park?
Remember, Hazlett Lake is a natural lake that covers a surface area of 0.45 km2 (0.17 mi2), has an average depth of 3 meters (10 feet). Hazlett Lake has a total shore line of 4 kilometers (2 miles). It is 44 Ha. (108.8 acres) in size. Located in the north-west sector of Red Deer.
Currently on the website we will see a residential community around Hazlett Lake. Encompassing about 12 percent of the land north of 11A currently up for development. Phase I will be home to 5,000 residents with the nearest high school on the other side of city on the east end. A K-8 school site to be located north-east of Hazlett Lake currently planned for a later phase.
“Hazlett Lake is a 350-acre master planned residential community located in North Red Deer at the intersection of Alberta’s busiest Highway -QE2 and Highway 11A. The community will consist of over 2000 new residential units and will be Phase 1 of Red Deer’s North of 11A Major Area Structural Plan. Additionally, this development will be the first new housing project in North Red Deer in 10 years”
Red Deer also wants to build an Aquatic Centre, and the current plan is to demolish the downtown rec centre and build it there. The Collicutt Centre was built in the south east corner of Red Deer, helped to kick start development. Why not build the Aquatic Centre in the north west corner, kick starting development and build it on Hazlett Lake and create a tourist industry?
An Aquatic Centre on a lake, ludicrous right? A tourist destination highly visible to one of the busiest highways in Canada, insane right? 2 miles of shoreline may have room for a beach, impossible right? The current plans in Red Deer indicates some trails, a small community building with some historical placards, possibly a bathroom and a playground.
Not quite Henderson Lake Park, tourist attraction, is it?
To me Red Deer has a gold mine of an opportunity that will be ignored at the expense of the citizens of Red Deer. Do you agree?

Johnstone Park, saw their planned school go to Inlewood. The city said the neighbourhood was not developed enough for a school, as compared to our new high school sitting in an empty neighbourhood.
Recently, the province stepped up and provided funding for the expansion on St. Patrick’s school in Highland Green, just north of the river. The school’s enrolment was 30% over capacity, a kindergarten class was being taught in a hallway, and students and families were paying the price.
There has not been a school built north of the river since 1985, perhaps that could explain why some schools are at 130% capacity and classes are held in hallways. There is no high schools north of the river, even though up to 40% of the population resided there. Could be why 777 more residents moved out of the north side and out of the city than moved into the area. Remember there are 4 high schools south of the river with 2 more planned. There are no high schools planned for the north side of the river even with thousands of acres north of 11a coming up for development and 25,000 more residents planned.
The Ministry of Education says they follow the direction of the local school boards.
What do the school board trustees, past and present have to say?
Public School Board incumbent and candidate, Dianne Macaulay had this to say;
“We have a variety of measures that can help the board determine growth in our schools. One is a system our district has been using for years call Baragard. This projects population demographics to help us determine possible new boundary’s when schools become full or when we are submitting our three year capital plan to the government for new schools needed. I can only answer your question regarding the building of schools.

The city is ultimately responsible for the placement of development including schools.

Some green spaces will have a sign indicating “This is a potential site of a public or separate school”. This can give people that are thinking about moving into that neighbourhood a heads up . But it doesn’t mean a school WILL be built.
Our latest school Don Campbell was needed but the government only gave us 3 month to determine a site. The city will not allow a school to be built unless the surrounding area is developed. So even thou a school may have been better off in another location , we only had sites on that end of the city that were currently developed
Lets talk about about the current high school project.
This was a massive joint project between Red Deer Public , Red Deer Catholic, the Francophone district and the city. The original plan was to build a joint use high school for all 3 boards. This would be a one of kind in Alberta and a large amount of space was needed for this so the city choose where it had the most to give at the time. Over 14 months of planning went into this and in the end the Bishop vetoed it because Alberta Catholic School Trustee Associations Convenant indicating their belief in how having Catholic and non catholic students together will take away from their Catholic teachings.
So now we have this huge area where will just be 2 or 3 different buildings. This has not saved tax payers one cent! I guess to sum up Garfield , we do look at the population growth and we try to build where the students will be. But sometimes our hands are tied.”

Angela Sommers, a Public School Board candidate says one of the biggest issues is the north/south inequality across schools, “just being north of the river, you can see there’s very little money for the students in the north.” Red Deer Advocate September 28 2017.

Advance polls open on Saturday, September 30, so I am offering you something to remember.

Follow Author


Online Harms Act threatens free expression in Canada

Published on

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

This repudiates centuries of legal tradition that rightly reserved punishment for what a person had done, not for what a person might do. Under this new provision, a complainant can assert to a provincial court that they “fear” that someone will promote genocide, hate or antisemitism.

On February 26, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, in the House of Commons. The Online Harms Act is presented by the government as a means to promote the online safety of persons in Canada and reduce harmful content online. The Online Harms Act would impose severe penalties for online and offline hate speech, including life imprisonment, which is the most severe criminal punishment in Canada. This new legislation would establish a new Digital Safety Commission with power to enforce new regulations created by the federal cabinet. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would acquire new powers to prosecute and punish non-criminal hate speech.

Good intentions should be applauded

Although the Online Harms Act seriously threatens free expression in Canada, there are good intentions behind some of its provisions. It is a laudable goal to force online platforms to remove revenge porn and other non-consensual sharing of intimate images, content that bullies children, content that sexually victimizes children, content that encourages children to harm themselves, and content that incites violence, terrorism or hatred.

Unnecessary duplication of the Criminal Code

However, good intentions do not justify passing additional laws that duplicate what is already prohibited by Canada’s Criminal Code. Additional laws that duplicate existing laws are a poor substitute for good law enforcement. 

Section 162.1(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code already prohibits online and offline publication of an intimate image without consent. Section 163 already prohibits publication of obscene materials and child pornography. Thus, it is already illegal to post online content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor. 

Section 264(1) already prohibits criminal harassment. Section 319(1) already prohibits the public incitement of hatred towards a group that is identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and other personal characteristics. Section 59(1) criminalizes sedition: advocating the use of force to achieve governmental change within Canada. Sections 83.21 and 83.22 criminalize instructing to carry out terrorist activity; any online content that incites terrorism is already illegal. 

Further, Section 22 of Canada’s Criminal Code prohibits counselling, procuring, soliciting or inciting another person “to be a party to an offence.” Any person who counsels, procures, solicits or incites another person to be a party to an offence will be found guilty if the person receiving such counsel commits the offence in question. This applies to terrorism and other violent crimes, and even to minor criminal offenses like shoplifting. Further, section 464 of the Criminal Code criminalizes counselling another person to commit an offence even if that offence is not committed.

Those who support the Online Harms Act should explain why they believe that existing legislation is inadequate to address “harmful” online expression.

New government bodies to censor online speech

If passed into law, the Online Harms Act will create a new Digital Safety Commission to enforce compliance with new regulations created by the federal cabinet. This Digital Safety Commission will have the power to regulate nearly any person or entity operating as a “social media service” in Canada. Any person or social media service found to have permitted “harmful content” would face penalties. The severity of the penalties would be established by the federal cabinet. The creators and users of online content will self-censor to avoid the risk of running afoul of the new regulations and government-imposed censorship. The Online Harms Act provides that an Order of the Digital Safety Commission may be converted into an Order of the Federal Court and enforced like a Court Order. This could result in people operating social media services being fined and imprisoned for contempt of court if they refuse to censor Canadians’ speech.

Pre-emptive punishment for crimes not committed

The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will add section 810.012 to the Criminal Code, which will permit pre-emptive violations of personal liberty when no crime has been committed. This repudiates centuries of legal tradition that rightly reserved punishment for what a person had done, not for what a person might do. Under this new provision, a complainant can assert to a provincial court that they “fear” that someone will promote genocide, hate or antisemitism. If the judge believes that there are “reasonable grounds” to justify the fear, the court can violate the liberty interests of the accused citizen by requiring her or him to do any or all of the following:

  • wear an ankle bracelet (electronic monitoring device)
  • obey a curfew and stay at home, as determined by the judge
  • abstain from alcohol, drugs, or both
  • provide bodily substances (e.g. blood, urine) to confirm abstinence from drugs or alcohol
  • not communicate with certain designated persons
  • not go to certain places, as determined by the judge
  • surrender her or his legally owned and legally required firearms

In other words: a citizen who has not committed any crime can be subjected to one or more (or all) of the above conditions just because someone fears that that person might commit a speech crime in future. Further, if the person who has committed no crime fails to agree to these court-ordered violations of her or his personal liberty, she or he could be sentenced to up to two years in prison.

Our criminal justice system is not supposed to function this way. Violating the liberty of citizens through pre-emptive punishment, when no crime has been committed (and quite possibly when no crime will be committed), is a radical departure from centuries of common law tradition. The respect that our legal system has for individual rights and freedoms means that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by way of a fair trial, held before an independent and impartial court. We do not punish the innocent, nor do we restrict their liberty based on what they might do. The mere fear that harmful expression may occur is not a legitimate basis for court-ordered imprisonment or other conditions that violate personal liberty.

Life imprisonment for words spoken

For the existing Criminal Code offence of advocating for genocide, the Online Harms Act would raise the maximum penalty from five years in jail to life imprisonment. Free societies recognize the distinction between speech and actions. The Online Harms Act blurs that distinction. 

Considering the inherent difficulty in determining whether a person has actually “advocated for genocide,” the punishment of a five-year prison term is already an adequate deterrent for words alone.

Federal cabinet can censor speech without input from Parliament

The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, would give new powers to the federal cabinet to pass regulations (which have the same force of law as legislation passed by Parliament) that place prohibitions or obligations on social media services. This includes passing regulations that impose fines or other consequences (e.g., the removal of a licence or the shutting down of a website) for non-compliance. New regulations can be created by the federal cabinet in its sole discretion, and do not need to be debated, voted on or approved by Parliament. Parliamentary proceedings are public. Any political party, or even one single MP, can raise public awareness about a Bill that she or he disagrees with, and can mobilize public opposition to that Bill. Not so with regulations, which are deliberated in secret by the federal cabinet, and that come into force without any public consultation or debate.

Apart from a federal election held once every four years, there is no meaningful way to hold cabinet to account for the draconian censorship of social media services by way of regulations and the harsh penalties that may be imposed for hosting “harmful content.” The federal cabinet can also decide what number of “users” the “social media service” needs to have in order to trigger federal regulation of content, or the federal cabinet can simply designate a social media service as regulated, regardless of the number of its users.

New censorship powers for Canadian Human Rights Commission

The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will give the Canadian Human Rights Commission new powers to prosecute and punish offensive but non-criminal speech by Canadians if, in the subjective opinion of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, they deem someone’s statement to be “hateful.” The Online Harms Act will empower Canadians offended by non-criminal expression to file complaints against their fellow citizens. 

Those who are prosecuted by the Human Rights Commission cannot defend themselves by establishing that their supposedly “hateful” statement is true, or that they had reasonable grounds for believing that their statement was true.

Those found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can be required to pay as much as $50,000 to the government, plus up to $20,000 to the person(s) designated as “victims” by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These significant financial penalties will discourage or eliminate necessary discussion on controversial but important issues in our society.

Advocates for censorship often stress the fact that human rights prosecutions are not criminal. It is true that those found guilty of violating vague speech codes by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal do not suffer the consequences of a criminal record. However, those who are prosecuted for expressing their beliefs face the difficult choice of having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal bills or having to issue an abject apology. Regardless of whether they choose to defend themselves against the complaint or not, they may still be ordered to pay up to $20,000 to the offended party or up to $50,000 to the government, or up to $70,000 to both.

Many Canadians will continue to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, but many will self-censor to avoid the risk of being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Anonymous complaints: no right to face one’s accuser

The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will allow complaints to be filed against Canadians in secret, such that the citizen who is prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission loses the ancient and well-founded right to face and question one’s accuser. This repudiates centuries of common law tradition requiring the legal process to be public and transparent. 

The pretext for eliminating this necessary and long-standing legal protection is that some complainants might be subjected to “threats, intimidation or discrimination.” This ignores the fact that threats and intimidation are already Criminal Code offences, and any illegal discrimination can be addressed by way of a new and separate complaint. Those filing complaints about expression should be accountable for their decision to do so; this is an inherent and necessary component of both criminal and civil legal proceedings. 

No need to establish that someone was harmed

If the Online Harms Act is passed into law, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will not even require a victim in order to prosecute a citizen for what she or he has said. For example, a man in Vancouver can file an anonymous complaint against a woman in Nova Scotia who made disparaging online remarks about a mosque in Toronto, regardless of whether that mosque’s members were harmed, or even offended, by the post. No actual victims are required for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to find guilt or to impose penalties. Nor does a victim need to prove that he or she suffered loss or damage; feeling offended by alleged “hate” is all that is needed to become eligible for financial compensation. 


For reasons set out here above, the Online Harms Act will harm freedom of expression in Canada if it is passed into law. Many Canadians will self-censor to avoid being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Canadians who do not self-censor, by practicing courage and by continuing to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, will still see their online expression removed from the internet by the operators of social media websites and platforms. These operators will seek to avoid running afoul of Mr. Trudeau’s new regulations. Everyone will live in fear of the Digital Safety Commission.

The Justice Centre urges all Members of Parliament to vote against this legislation.

Continue Reading

Bruce Dowbiggin

Trudeau’s C-63: The Criminalization Of “Harm”

Published on

Our Boomer generation arrived just a little late for the onslaught of Daycare Reality. In the days when we walked to school uphill both ways, the oppressive regime of mothers being our primary caregivers was the norm. For better or worse, she provided the Rules of Behaviour. In a housecoat. With a flyswatter and a jar of cookies.

Then daycare became the place where society civilized its children while Mommy and Daddy underwent DEI programming at work. None of that messy variation from home-to-home on matters of civility, discipline or faith. With the state involved it was one-stop shopping.

“Billy. We don’t use violence to solve bullying.” “Jane, we must respect others’ workspace” and that classic, “Ms. Miller will conduct a struggle session to resolve this squabble.” Okay, “struggle sessions” didn’t have a name yet. But their insertion of an authority figure into every squabble was very real.

If not, pharmaceuticals were employed.

Fast forward a generation, and the products of early daycare were spilling out into society. Most were polite, reserved and, most important, deferential to authority. Sure, some dabbled in rebellion, but most accepted the essential tenant of the state being central to calming their fears of the boogey man. (That’s how safe spaces were invented.)

One of their fears, they were told, was Hate Speech. What began as an earnest attempt to silence Ernst Zundel’s #Nazi ravings has morphed into a Department of Daycare deciding whose speech is hurtful and whose is transcendent Happy Ways positivism.

Speaking of Happy Ways positivism, Svengali Justin the Munificent has introduced legislation C-63— the risibly named Harms Bill— creating an innocent little department of his government to regulate speech. The idea being that gender and race post grads will arbitrate whether your online speech is icky, especially to people in elected office (Calgary has already introduced a law banning the razzing of mayors who declare a climate emergency on their first day in office.) It will also guess what your future harms might be and award you an ankle bracelet.

Its reach has left foreigners gobsmacked. What was hunting porn and pedos is now hunting dissidents. This “expert” on turning society into a thought experiment was very chuffed about the possibilities of construing rude as criminal. (And bloating the bureaucracy even more) Now, smiling Princess Vapid is achieving ecstasy, because unelected bureaucrats will decide what is naughty speech and what is not.

You can’t blame Justin for pushing ever further into the suppression of speech. Using the slobbering servitude of the NDP as a crutch, he has already bribed most of the failing media companies in the country into toeing the line on policies— while they went light on stuff like the RCMP giving him a hall pass on the SNC Lavalin shenanigans. In lockstep with CBC, they get the money, his mistakes go in the round file.

Never mind that the population is fleeing media fossils like CBC or the Toronto Star for non-Canadian content that they (gasp) enjoy. In the interest of having dedicated government wind therapists, tax money will go to specials on imminent climate-change destruction, Islamaphobia or “Pierre Poilievere Is Donald Trump” exposés.

There is no corner of Canadian society too small for the Church Ladies to ignore. For instance, the new legalized sports gambling industry. To paraphrase the old beer ad, “Those who hate it, hate it a lot”. Here CBC has the vapours over the world’s second-oldest industry. Commercial insertions, a flurry of statistics and some dubious spokespeople are among the complaints. So is the retrograde effect of gambling addiction, which was always beneath the surface when sports betting was illegal or offshore.

Another thing irritating the betting haters has been the presence of famous athletes like Wayne Gretzky, Auston Matthews and Connor McDavid (among others) in advertisements pitching the joys of parlays, teasers and side bets. The thinking goes that this star worship is ruining the youth of the nation, even though betting is illegal till 18 years old. While tempting adults who might otherwise be wasting disposable income on political donations.

With Ontario’s legalized betting market among the most competitive in the world— and Alberta making noise in this week’s budget about its about-to-open market— the guardians of decency have weighed in with something called “Registrar’s Standards for Internet Gaming”. It bans the use of sports stars in advertising for a legalized product. As Steve McAllister of Gaming News Canada reports, “there’ll be no more Gretz, no more Gronk, no more Jamie Foxx/Kevin Hart/Vince Vaughn/Vanessa Hudgens, no more Auston Matthews, and no more Mitch Marner/Leon Draisaitl/Chris Pronger on the Canadian airwaves, billboards, subways and/or social media platforms.”

Sports Interaction, the most prominent betting site on Hockey Night in Canada, deep-sixed their Marner/Draisaitl/Pronger ads on last Saturday’s HNIC game, replacing them with the “Americans-don’t-know-diddly-about-hockey spots”.

That should take care of that! Except that Americans haven’t applied a fatwa on sports stars shilling for casino gambling. So Canadians who want their guilty pleasure of hero worship will still be able to see Gretzky, Gronk and Jerry Rice on their cross-border U.S. channels. Or on websites that cross the border like Venezuelans sneaking into America. Unless the dutiful CRTC tries to substitute Canadian advertising standards on those broadcasts where Gretz has a pulpit. But let’s not give them new ideas for mischief.

None of this would be happening now if Canadian governments hadn’t spent the past decade forgoing wagering revenues that went offshore or into the black market. But it’s such a cash cow the industry can now run competitive sites, distribute money to Gambling addiction sites and still have lots left to give government for their hobby-horse progressive causes.

Which are now being ladled out to gullible students by activist educators or poured into the foreign adventures of people like Agriculture minister Lawrence “I’ll Order Lobster” McAulay. And don’t we all feel better about that? We know you do.

“Johnny? Stop looking out the window and start saluting Mr. Trudeau’s picture!”

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his new book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via

Continue Reading