MaD

The Quiet Transfer of Canada. Please forward this article to any Lawyer, Realtor or Landlord that you may know. They need to know and they probably do not have a clue. I welcome all comments. Let's start a national discussion. druthers.ca/the-quiet-tran…

Majority By Override (Five floor crossers gave Carney power Canadians never did. Now every failure lands squarely on him.) Dear Carney Liberals, Congratulations. Not for winning Canadians over. That part is still very much in dispute. No, congratulations on finding a way around them. Canadians voted. They chose parties, platforms, and direction. They sent MPs to Ottawa to carry that forward. That was the deal. And then you broke it. Five MPs, elected under one banner, crossed the floor and handed you the seats you could not win. Not after a new vote. Not after asking their constituents. After. The ballots were cast. The outcome was clear. You changed it anyway. That is not a majority. That is a retrofit. And let’s be clear. Not ONE Canadian believes those five MPs had a sudden divine, moral epiphany and discovered Liberalism as the only righteous path. Anyone that says they do is lying. No one believes that. Not in those ridings. Not anywhere. That story isn’t just weak. It’s insulting. It takes a very specific kind of smug, insulated elitism to assume Canadians are dumb enough to accept it. This wasn’t principle. This was convenience. Which brings us to the problem you created. What is the value of a vote if it can be nullified after the fact by the person elected to respect it? You vote for Party A. Your MP defects to Party B. Your riding is now represented by the opposite of what you chose. No say. No recall. No consequence. Just a press conference and a new seat. That is what you are calling a mandate. You didn’t just gain five seats. You overrode five electorates. You replaced voter intent with political utility. And now you have your majority. The one Canadians did not give you. Which means you now hold full legislative power without ever securing full public support. So let’s drop the script. You did not do this for routine governance. You know it. We know it. You did it because you intend to use it. Majorities exist to pass what would otherwise fail. That means what is coming cannot survive scrutiny, amendment, or resistance. You didn’t assemble this to cooperate. You assembled it to override. And here is where your problem starts. You didn’t just take power. You took ownership of everything that follows. Every decision is now yours. Every failure. Every misstep. There is no minority gridlock to hide behind. No opposition to blame. No excuses left. You asked for full control. Now you carry full weight. That includes your own benches. Loyal backbenchers, sidelined while political imports take space and influence. That kind of resentment doesn’t disappear. It waits. Sometimes very, very patiently. And then there is the scrutiny. The kind that sharpens the moment you no longer need permission to act. Every contradiction lands harder. Every ethical lapse lingers longer. Every double standard gets harder to explain. Flying on taxpayer dollars while preaching restraint. Expanding spending while telling Canadians to tighten their belts. Selling sacrifice while living untouched by it. Those gaps don’t close. They widen. Just ask the last Liberal government how long that holds. It doesn’t. Because the more power you take, the harder it is to carry without dropping something. And when things start to drop, they don’t fall one at a time. They cascade. And that is what you’ve set in motion. You bypassed voters to get here. You concentrated power to stay here. Now you get to absorb what comes next. Because you can fool some of the people some of the time. But not half the country forever. Sincerely, Melanie in Saskatchewan And the voters you overruled. 👇🏻 open.substack.com/pub/melanieins…? 👇🏻 buymeacoffee.com/melanieinsaska…

@billymorinECN @MicahGreen01 Thank you!

I am proud to be apart of a Strong Opposition - something Canadians are owed. Instead of being 1/8 voices being used in a shameless Liberal power grab that degrades democracy. I am proud of the support I receive by our Leader & Conservative Caucus. I stand by my constituents.

@Concern70732755 @BillTufts I want to cry

What are your thoughts when you look upon this flag ??

Cross the Floor. End Your Career. Dear Members of Parliament Allegedly Considering Crossing the Floor... Recently it was revealed that there are up to another ten MPs thinking about crossing the floor to @MarkJCarney's Liberals. If floor crossing is so principled, why are you afraid to ask the people who elected you first? There is a moment before a decision like this where everything slows down. Not publicly. Out there, it’s noise, talking points, strategic leaks, careful denials. “Rumours.” Up to ten of you, apparently. Unconfirmed. Unproven. And yet, specific enough that it feels less like speculation and more like a test balloon. But internally, it’s different. Quiet. Focused. Because before you act, you already know what this is, and more importantly, you know how it will be seen. Strip Away the Language... You were not elected as a free agent drifting between ideologies. You were elected under a banner, a platform, a set of commitments that voters used to make a decision. They did not vote for you in theory. They voted for you in context. Remove that context and you are not evolving. You are overriding. You are taking tens of thousands of votes and retroactively rewriting them without consent. You can call it pragmatism. You can call it stability. You can call it doing what’s necessary. Your constituents will not use any of those words. They will use one, maybe two… Betrayal. Traitor. The Voice You’re Trying Not to Hear... That hesitation you feel right now is not indecision. It’s recognition. Because somewhere beneath the strategy, beneath the conversations and the pressure, there is a very simple understanding pressing in on you. This crosses a line. You can rationalize it. You can bury it under language about national interest. You can tell yourself this is bigger than your riding. But if that were true, you wouldn’t be avoiding the one step that would make it legitimate. Asking them. The Question You Refuse to Put to Your Voters... If this is so defensible, so necessary, so clearly the right move, why won’t you ask your constituents first? Why not resign, sit as an independent, and run again under the banner you now claim reflects your beliefs? Is it because you already know the answer? Is it because the people who elected you would not follow you? Or is it because the idea of hearing “no” is so corrosive to your sense of self that you’d rather rewrite their vote than risk your ego? If this is leadership, why does it require this much avoidance to function? What You Think You’re Securing... You may believe this is a move toward relevance, toward influence, toward a longer career orbiting power. It isn’t. It is a branding decision. You will become known, permanently, as the one who crossed. The one who asked for trust and then treated it like something they stepped in and couldn’t scrape off their shoe fast enough. The one who decided that proximity to power mattered more than fidelity to the people who put you there. That reputation does not fade. It hardens. It follows you into nomination meetings where hands don’t go up. Into interviews where questions linger a second longer than they should. Into rooms where your name is met with a pause instead of support. And you’ll feel it. Not loudly. Quietly. Consistently. And Here Is the Part You’re Ignoring... Your new allies will never fully trust you. They will welcome you, yes. They will use your vote. They will count you, quote you, parade you as proof of momentum. But they will always know what you did. You crossed once. Which means you can cross again. So what exactly are you to them? A trusted colleague, or a convenient number that comes with an expiry date? Because you don’t become indispensable this way. You become temporary. Not a partner. A placeholder. What You Are Actually Participating In... Let’s remove the last layer of insulation. This is not about thoughtful realignment. It is not about evolving political identity. This is about manufacturing a majority that voters did not grant, using individual ambition as the mechanism to bypass collective consent. You are not stabilizing governance. You are short-circuiting it. If this is democracy, why does it need to be done around the voters instead of through them? There Is an Honest Path. You’re Avoiding It... If you truly believe your position has changed, there is a clean, defensible, democratic way to proceed. Resign. Sit as an independent. Run again under your new banner. Let your constituents decide whether they endorse your shift. Anything less is not courage. It is convenience, wearing a borrowed moral argument. The Ending You Haven’t Considered... You are likely telling yourself this will settle, that voters will move on, that memory is short and cycles reset. That this becomes a footnote. It won’t. Because this is not a policy disagreement. This is a character decision made in full view. And voters do not forget those. So ask yourself one final question before you take the step you are clearly being encouraged to take. And do it with a semblance os self respect for who you were when you were elected, instead of settling to be "that guy." If you cannot defend this decision directly to the people who elected you, what exactly are you defending it for? And when this moment is over, when the noise fades and the next election arrives, do you really believe they will forget what you showed them about who you are? Or are you betting your entire career that they won’t care enough to remember? Final Word... You knew what you were asking for when you ran. You knew what that vote meant, and you accepted it anyway. So don’t stand there now and pretend the rules changed or the stakes shifted. They didn’t. You did. And if you follow through on this, don’t dress it up as anything noble. It’s not complicated. It’s the same logic as an unfaithful spouse who thinks they’ve found something better and convinces themselves the original commitment no longer matters. You made a promise, and you’re breaking it because something else caught your eye. That’s not politics. That’s character. And once people see that clearly, they don’t forget it, they don’t forgive it, and they certainly don’t reward it. Melanie in Saskatchewan 👇🏻 open.substack.com/pub/melanieins… 👇🏻 buymeacoffee.com/melanieinsaska… #cdnpoli #ThinkTwice

@SMmamashack @CdnMama3 @MarcNixon24 Do you realize our overpaid governor general cant speak french

@CdnMama3 @MarcNixon24 No it’s about a CEO not bothering to write his condolences in both official languages when one of the pilots was francophone. He didn’t sit down and write that himself - it was an official corporate statement.

CEO of Air Canada Terminated for not speaking French MP Micheal Ma denies forced child labour camps in China after back stabbing his constituents KEEPS his job Welcome to Canada 🇨🇦

@AliAlexander18 @That_Bebbzy_Guy @CTVNews Unlike carney who pushed a long time liberal out if his riding

@That_Bebbzy_Guy @CTVNews Main difference is PP’s was paid out because he’s a loser and needed to strike a deal to get a safe riding to run in…Con’s spend to back losers while whining about government spending #ClownPartyofCanada

Pierre Poilievre’s byelection cost taxpayers more than $2.3 million ctvnews.ca/politics/artic…

Dear Mark Carney, You stood in front of Canadians and declared Beijing the most serious geopolitical threat we face. Not a passing concern. Not a complicated partner. A threat. You said it plainly, with the weight of office behind it, and with the backing of the very institutions charged with protecting this country. CSIS has warned, repeatedly, that China targets our democratic processes, our diaspora communities, and our national sovereignty. The RCMP has said the same in language that is about as subtle as a brick through a window. So Canadians listened. And then they watched you board a plane to Beijing. Not cautiously. Not reluctantly. Not as a last resort. You went with purpose, with messaging, and with a freshly minted narrative about a “new strategic partnership.” You brought Michael Ma along, who has since managed to conduct himself in committee in a way that left Canadians wondering whether we were watching an elected representative of this country or a very enthusiastic brand ambassador for Beijing’s preferred talking points. And rather than distance yourself, you stand by him. You attend fundraisers with him. You absorb the optics and carry on. At this point, Canadians are being asked to process a grim little evolution in language. We once spoke about the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor as “The Two Michaels,” a stark reminder of what Beijing is prepared to do when it suits its interests. Now, thanks to your judgment, we seem to be drifting toward a sequel nobody asked for. Not detainees this time, but a political alignment so tone deaf that it invites the phrase “The Three Michaels.” It would be clever if it weren’t so damning. Now, barely time for the jet lag to settle, François-Philippe Champagne is headed back to China. Because nothing says “serious national security concern” quite like a rotating cast of ministers dropping in for trade talks as if repetition will eventually convince Canadians that what they’re seeing is normal. Let’s pause here, because this is where your argument begins to unravel under its own weight. You keep telling Canadians we live in a dangerous and divided world. You repeat it like a refrain. A justification. A framing device for everything that follows. And yet, at every consequential decision point, you choose deeper engagement with the very regime your own security agencies identify as the source of that danger. That is not strategy. That is contradiction dressed up in policy language. You have attempted to explain this away under the banner of “diversification.” Canada, you say, must reduce its reliance on the United States and expand its global trade relationships. On paper, that sounds prudent. In practice, what you are doing bears no resemblance to diversification. Diversification spreads risk. What you are pursuing shifts dependency from a stable, democratic partner to an adversarial state apparatus that your own institutions warn is actively working against our interests. That is not diversification. That is a transfer of vulnerability. And nowhere is this more obvious than in your handling of Chinese electric vehicles. Because apparently, before we even get to the economics, Canadians are meant to ignore the rather glaring pattern inside your own house. During an election where foreign interference was not exactly a fringe topic, concerns around Paul Chiang were handled with the delicacy of a man brushing lint off his sleeve. Now we have Michael Ma performing in committee in a way that left observers blinking twice and checking whether they had wandered into the wrong hearing entirely. And your response, in both cases, has been a masterclass in selective blindness. No discipline. No meaningful distancing. Just a steady, almost defiant insistence that nothing rises to the level of concern, even as the concerns pile up in plain view. It is a remarkable approach to leadership. Declare Beijing a threat on Monday, tolerate Beijing-adjacent behaviour in your own ranks on Tuesday, and by Wednesday, ask Canadians to trust you as you deepen engagement with the same regime. One might almost think the standard is not national security, but personal convenience in service of an agenda you were never elected to pursue. And then you pivot to Chinese EV expansion and call it economic strategy. You told Canadians this would mean jobs. Growth. Opportunity. A modern industrial strategy. What you have actually delivered is a policy environment that allows companies like BYD to establish a retail footprint in Canada, with plans for roughly 20 dealerships, while the vehicles themselves are built in China, shipped here in largely finished sections, and assembled quickly for sale. Dealerships, Mark. Showrooms with financing desks and glossy brochures. That is not a manufacturing base. That is not a supply chain. That is not an economic engine. It is the final step in a process that takes place almost entirely offshore. So let’s ask the obvious question you keep sidestepping. Where are the Canadian jobs you promised? And the more uncomfortable question, the one you have shown no interest in answering. Who will be doing the assembly? Because Canadians have seen this movie before. We have seen what happens when “strategic partnerships” quietly include foreign labour pipelines that displace domestic workers while governments insist, with a straight face, that everything is above board. You are asking Canadians to trust that this time will be different, while providing no meaningful assurances that it will be. At the same time, the foreign influence transparency framework that Canadians were promised remains, in practical terms, incomplete. After years of warnings, investigations, and a full commission laying out the scope and intent of Beijing’s activities in this country, the basic mechanisms for transparency and accountability are still not fully operational. And yet the flights continue. The meetings continue. The normalization continues. You have constructed a political reality where Canada’s security agencies raise alarms, and your government responds by lowering the volume and opening more doors. Which brings us to the part you would likely prefer to dismiss as theatrical, but which is, in fact, painfully apt. There is an old rule in folklore. The vampire cannot cross the threshold unless it is invited. You are not standing guard at the door, Mark. You are opening it. You are ushering it in. You are offering up access to markets, to infrastructure, to influence, and calling it economic necessity. You are presenting this as leadership in a dangerous world, while disregarding the very institutions that define that danger in the first place. And for what? To pursue a vision of economic transformation that Canadians did not vote for. To pivot this country away from its largest and most reliable trading partner, not through a measured, debated, democratic process, but through a series of executive decisions framed as inevitabilities. To build what you describe as a new economic order, aligned with your climate ambitions and global positioning, while asking Canadians to accept the risks as collateral. This is not a course correction. This is a wholesale redesign. And it was never put to the people. You told Canadians to trust institutions like CSIS and the RCMP when they warned of foreign interference, intimidation, and covert influence operations tied to Beijing. Those institutions have not changed their assessment. So why have you? At what point does “engagement” stop being a tool and start becoming an excuse? At what point does “diversification” stop being a strategy and start looking like dependence in different packaging? And at what point do Canadians get to decide whether this is the future they want, rather than having it assembled for them, piece by imported piece, and presented as a finished product? You asked for trust. What you have given instead is contradiction. And Canadians are starting to notice. Melanie buymeacoffee.com/melanieinsaska… open.substack.com/pub/melanieins…

@Markfry809 You know who is not jn the Epstein files… pierre Poilievre

You know who’s name isn’t all over the Epstein files? my Prime Minister 🇨🇦

@BraddrofliT I thought you were talking about carney and the liberals. It fits perfectly !

Nothing terrifies people in power more than you realizing: the chaos isn’t incompetence. It’s strategy.

If no one else wants to say it, I will: Stop calling it a TSA crisis. It’s not broken. It’s being broken on purpose. Project 2025, page 159. This is how control gets sold to the public. You better vote.

@MarcNixon24 @LynneBr37562004 @ryangerritsen @KevinsWorld64 Spent time with my lib friends today. We are all boomers. Severe TDS. I said very little. When I finally spoke up… not a rant. Dead silence…pretty sure they think I have lost my mind. Makes me want to cry. They know lots about trump and very little about whats happening

@LynneBr37562004 @ryangerritsen @KevinsWorld64 You’re right, Lynne Most people I’ve talked to have zero idea what’s happening in this country They’re too busy working three jobs or they feel too defeated to care

How are Liberal supporters OK with Bill C9? It’s the most insane Bill I’ve ever seen. Do they actually want Canadians to be jailed for a meme? Sounds like NORTH KOREA 🇰🇵 to Me…

@Trent8675309 @ExnerPirot Don’t forget our nre strategic partner China…. They will owning Canada soon too

@ExnerPirot I don't see the private sector taking on this risk after the last 11 years of this hostile govt, I said it before and will say it again carney wants to nationalize our resource sector have the taxpayer foot the bill and then Brookfield ends up owning/operating it.

“It’s not enough for Mr. Carney to sign the pipeline memorandum and leave it at that. More needs to be done to create the conditions to get the private sector to the table and start building, so Mr. Carney can achieve his stated goal of turning Canada into an energy superpower. The spike in oil prices due to the war in the Middle East is a reminder about the continued critical role of the energy sector.” theglobeandmail.com/gift/2d737d3a9…

@garyblo49780145 @MarcNixon24 Boomer here. I do not understand the woman voter thing. Poilievre is respectful to woman reporters and appears kind to wife/ kids. The PM walks ahead of his wife and is condescending to reporters,especially women… just don’t get it

@MarcNixon24 This is all very well and good but convincing women to like Poilievre will be the monumental challenge of the decade.

BREAKING: Power Play with Vassy Kapelos on Joe Rogan Experience with Pierre Poilievre INCREDIBLE ACHIEVEMENT Not one ☝️ BAD THING said for an entire 10 min Everyone was SHOCKED Prime Minister Material DROPPED several times.

@ZaickRyan @ggrmcd @joerogan They “issue corrections” on their website. Who looks at their website to see them! They do not do it on their broadcast

@ggrmcd @joerogan There is nothing saying because CBC is the biggest broadcaster they have to be those things But they are the majority of the time, factual and true (and issue corrections when they aren’t), problem is they are incredibly biased when they shouldn’t be, which leads to distrust

It’s clear @joerogan does absolutely fucking zero research on his guests before hand. He could have easily found his voting record on everything over the last 20+ years but instead chose to believe a proven liar. How PP lost his long held seat should have been a long discussion.

@jafcon @ryangerritsen Sad to say but boomers…. I am a boomer. I try and try to educate them……most of them are set up nicely in retirement… and so are their families. No it doesn’t affect them… there may be a day of reckoning as our country decides by the day

@ryangerritsen Who the hell watches this drivel to learn from it?

Oh no! Rogan had Elon on his show? He also said he supported Trump? He said something that was anti-lgbtq? Oh the humanity! I’m so glad we have these perfect virtuous humans giving us their opinions day in & day out….🙄

@krisster8 @GlobalCalgary Just wondering why you would not include Alberta in that comment? As the amount of transfer payments the eastern provinces receives is huge compared to what Alberta sends to Ottawa. Alberta and Bc receive nothing in transfer payments

@GlobalCalgary Liberals will not move forward on oil or infrastructure. Only net zero projects for Ontrario. Global news should know this.

Canada may have the ability to substantially raise its GDP and add thousands of new jobs by building more oil pipeline infrastructure, a new study suggests. globalnews.ca/news/11739635/…

@Br0mslee @Smil3yAngel Agree but i do try to not but from China as far as produce…. No idea how they were grown

@Smil3yAngel Must be nice to withstand the economic onslaught brought upon you by the Liberal governments enough to still have choice in the matter. I still buy whatever is cheapeast. Who cares where it is from.

2 grocery stores in Ontario were fined for mislabelling foods as made in Canada. 5 stores across Canada have been fined in total since last year. I am still always choosing to buy Canadian, or at the very least, anything but USA. If you are still buying Canadian, leave a 🍁

@woodlandmadman @sluggo19fifty8 @Smil3yAngel He has worked his ass off NOT for Canadians but for Brookfield

@sluggo19fifty8 @Smil3yAngel He's earned it. As long as he works his ass off while he's on the clock his own time is his own business

@mkryst70 @davis_andr52649 @MCHACanada @Smil3yAngel I agree. He’s a smart guy…. So smart he has outsmarted 1/2 of Canadians. He has made zero deals. All MOU’s.

I agree Carney spent a lot of time working and investing outside of Canada. I didn't even vote for the liberal party, but I think Carney is a smart guy. So far he's doing everything he should be doing to defend Canada in this trade war initiated by Trump (most Americans don't agree with his approach).

@mkryst70 @MCHACanada @Smil3yAngel WOW. He knows EXACTLY what hes invested in. In all his 27 trips in the last year he had met Brookfield buddies. He will leave Canada a billionaire on our dime and Canada will be dirt poor! Check out Moose on the loose on youtube. All the receipts on his ties to Brookfield

@MCHACanada @Smil3yAngel Considering his investment assets are in a blind trust, Carney has no say on trades and doesn't even have knowledge of what investments are in his portfolio. Neither do we.