07.03.2014 09:46 PM

In Friday’s Sun: will by-elections mean bye-bye?

As by-election results rolled in on the evening of June 30, did Prime Minister Stephen Harper start contemplating the location of the nearest exit door?

It’s possible. After all, the quartet of by-elections arguably gave him plenty of cause for concern.

In the Alberta riding of Fort McMurray-Athabasca, his party’s candidate won handily, as most expected. But Team Harper received less than 6,000 of the nearly 84,000 entitled to vote. That means only about seven per cent of Fort Mac’s electorate were motivated enough to get off the couch and go vote Conservative. Also cause for concern: when contrasted to the 2011 general election, the Tory share of the vote in the riding shrunk by more than 20 per cent.

And the Liberals – the damned NEP-foisting socialist Liberals! – came a respectable second in Fort McMurray-Athabasca, the very heart of Alberta’s oil industry. They didn’t win, as the polling firm Forum Research had predicted. But the Trudeau Liberals are surging, even in places like Fort Mac, where all that previously preserved them were endangered species laws.

Turnout was similarly dire in a second Alberta riding, Macleod. There, the Conservatives won convincingly – but, as in Fort McMurray, the Liberals quadrupled their share of the vote from 2011. And, as in Fort McMurray, the Grits displaced the NDP as the Conservatives’ principal opponent.
Back East, where the remaining two by-elections were taking place in Toronto, the Conservatives were given much more to fret about.

In Scarborough-Agincourt, where the Tories were most competitive, the Liberals won all but one of 160 polls. They also received more than twice as many votes as the Conservatives – who had blanketed the riding with despicable leaflets that falsely claimed Justin Trudeau favoured the sale of marijuana to kids.

In Trinity-Spadina, meanwhile, the resurgent Liberals took back the riding they had held from 1993 to 2006. But the Conservatives received a measly five per cent of the vote – the same share as the Green Party candidate.

As is well-known, it’s foolish to suggest that by-elections portend general election results. Here in Ontario, for instance, Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals did poorly in a string of by-elections – and then won a stunning majority when all the votes were counted on June 12.

But, as he sifts through the by-election entrails, Harper can reliably extract three truths.

One, Justin Trudeau is no flash in the proverbial pan. His popularity endures. And millions spent on attack ads haven’t changed the reality: in the 50-odd polls that have been conducted since he became Liberal leader, Trudeau remains Canadians’ favourite choice to be Prime Minister.

Two, Canadians clearly want some sort of a change from Harper and/or his Conservatives. It isn’t scandal, so much, that has muddied the Conservative brand. It’s likelier the passage of time: nearly a decade in power have left the Conservatives looking decidedly tired and old. To many Canadians, they don’t represent places like Fort McMurray or Macleod in Ottawa anymore – they ARE Ottawa.

Three, Harper doesn’t have much to work with. Sure, he will boast about a federal budgetary surplus in the coming months – but with most provinces facing sizeable budgetary deficits, Harper’s fiscal success won’t be so clear-cut to many voters. And, apart from the surplus, what other issues can help Harper win support? Not ethics, and not social programs. What story will he tell on the hustings? It’s unclear.

Clearer, however, is that exit door. All that Stephen Harper need do is step through it.

And – presto – all of problems described above become someone else’s.


  1. Bobby says:

    “And – presto – all of problems described above become someone else’s.”
    You had me until this last line which I would attribute more to one Dalton McGuinty than to Harper.

    What I agree the most with in your column is that under Harper the Conservatives are looking old and tired. Saying that though I also think that they have quite a deep pool to play with re:successors who could still give Mulcair and Trudeau a run for their money and win.

  2. Michael Bluth says:

    Why would Harper leave now?

    He might lose the next election, maybe.

    He has built up a dynamic between Angry Tom and JT that means a minority CPC win doesn’t necessarily mean a Liberal NDP coalition.

    He really likes being Prime Minister. What’s he going to do if he retires? He seems like the kind who will stay in the game as long as practicably possible. Another majority and he’ll pass Chretien for length of time served as PM. Harper is definitely factoring that into his considerations.

    Harper’s still younger than: Chretien, St. Laurent, Martin, Pearson and Diefenbaker (among others) when they all first became prime minister.

    Sure people can say the ads about JT aren’t working. Isn’t that what they said about the ads against Dion not being a leader, or about Iggy just visiting 17 months before their equally unsuccessful general elections as leader? Those ads were on the money in hindsight.

    Didn’t WK argue that the a key value of those types are in building the narrative over the long-term. Especially when there is a ring of truth to them?

    The ads against JT won’t work if he runs flawlessly between now and October 2015. Every misstatement and wrong step adds that much more credibility to those ads.

    I’m betting Harper thinks there will be enough credibility built up by the next election to keep him in the PMO a while longer.

    • Bobby says:

      Good points. I do think he’s going to leave but on his own terms…..and he’s way ahead of the pundits on this IMO.

      Check out this article. It really doesn’t spell doom and gloom for Harper at all http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/4-storylines-in-the-federal-parties-annual-financial-reports-1.2695544

    • pc says:

      “He really likes being Prime Minister.”

      I don’t know that this is true anymore. He seems really tired. Sure, I think he likes the idea of being PM, and will likely hold on as long as he possibly can, to his and his party’s eventual detriment, but the fire seems to be gone. I suspect the only thing keeping him from taking his walk in the snow is his ego.

      • Bobby says:

        Show me a politician with NO ego and I might believe you.
        It’s a prerequisite don’t’ya know.

      • Michael Bluth says:

        Ego is definitely one of the things keeping Harper in power. Doesn’t it take a huge ego to become the elected leader of any country?

        The money from directorships and speaking engagements will be there whenever he retires. Not really a reason to retire early. Say what you want about Harper’s politics but he doesn’t seem like a guy who is in it for personal financial benefit.

    • Reality.Bites says:

      What he’s going to do if he retires is what most do – earn a lot of money with directorships.

  3. RonO'N says:

    Warren, I just can’t see true Canadians in the ROC (excluding Quebec) voting for either the Liberals or NDP and by default ending up with another PM from la nation du Quebec. In a fully fought federal general election that will be a burning issue in the minds of Canadians who hold perpetual have-not Quebec in low esteem.

    The CPC flashed one attack video using Justin’s own words saying that Quebecers make the best PMs… and if I recollect correctly, you called Justin’s supremacist views “poisonous”. The CPC will most certainly play their anti-Quebec card in the ROC to stop both Trudeau and Mulcair, because Harper doesn’t need the Quebec vote to win a majority government and he proved that in 2011.

    This crack in Trudeau’s armour will cause him to bleed in the ROC because the CPC will twist the knife into Justin’s Quebec wound until it sinks into the minds of Canadians and people who support the Liberals or NDP will be viewed as traitors to the ROC.

    • Kaspar Juul says:

      True Canadians? Ron get off the drugs

    • Derek Pearce says:

      Let me guess, you’re not from Ontario or eastward are you? Outside Albsaskitoba, the anti-Quebec card just. Does. Not. Work. Did the Refooooooooooooooorm Party not learn that the hard way back in the 90s? Ontarians especially don’t give a sh*t where a party leader is from.

      • pc says:

        And I doubt it works all that well in Manitoba. Its only real traction is in Albertabama and Kansaskatchewan.

        • que sera sera says:

          Considering Manitoba has thriving rural/urban Francophone communities, bilingual education streams, a statutory holiday dedicated to the Metis leader Louis Riel, and successive socialist provincial governments – there is no use pretending these Harper Conservative’s apparently corrosive politics of hatred, xenophobia & divisiveness have much traction in that particular province.

      • Ron O'N says:

        Western Canada now starts at the Ottawa River and have-not Ontarians will prefer generous Alberta equalization payments and reject threats from Quebec’s Carbon Tax leaders. Ontario is now dependent on Alberta and oil sands too for future prosperity!

        I remind you that AB Harper beat out ON Ignatieff and won the 2011 election solely on voters in the ROC (excluding Quebec). You are asking ON voters to put their economic welfare into the hands of couple of garçons quebecois… and that’s a prescription for poverty if not insanity!!

        The CPC will exploit the “ROC versus Québéc” regional card while Trudeau and Mulcair will be forced to say one thing in Quebec and the opposite in the ROC where the Harper hating suckers will lap it up. Desperation breeds fear.

    • domenico says:

      wolf whistle talk from a xenophobe preaching to the banjo players.

  4. Ron says:

    If Harper tries the same old neocon claptrap, he will get what Hudak got.

  5. Marg Baxter says:

    “Justin Trudeau has accused the Tories of mishandling the temporary foreign workers file for so long that ‘they’re now putting in caps that are going to hurt people in Fort McMurray’” (Star). By trying to win an impossible contest by dangling cheap-labour goodies, they’ve spent huge political capital i.e. alienated more Canadians who know temporary foreign workers are being used to break unions, indeed all labour standards and wage floors. This issue is and will be used to try to drive a wooden stake through the heart of the vampire-like Kenney cabal. Is JT really trying to get a piece of that? Let’s be clear: the importation of slaves to liquidate a not-servile-enough Canadian work force won’t do. As now-Chinese owned Nexen is gutting staff from senior management on down, the writing is on the wall: in a Conservative-Liberal future, from the office, to the rigs, down to the Tims, Canadians need not apply. Treason. Pauperization and mass lay-offs are always a losing strategy. Just ask Tim Hudak. If Trudeau is hell-bent on pushing hard to the right, social democrats will surge; therefore, Liberal or Conservative minority – at best.

  6. Jerry says:

    And of course Canadians have picked up the tab for all the propganda hundreds of millions Harper has wasted since coming to power, both for Con Party expenses and ActionPlan Adscam. Not that conservative voters care about wasted money when it’s not wasted by Liberals.

    • Bobby says:

      Have you not seen the McWynnety ads in Ontario Jerry? Corning the market on waste isn’t anything new to the Ontario Liberals.

      • que sera sera says:

        Bobby dear, you and your fellow neo-Cons apparently are the experts on being cornholed in service of your political masters. But not all Canadians are eager to bend over and take one up the fundament in the evangelical belief that the payoff will be “eternal”.

        Harper’s mouth keeps writing cheques that Canada cannot cash.

        But I expect basic math is not the strong suit of a non-practicing unemployed economist who took 7 years to obtain a degree from a third tier university.

  7. socks clinton says:

    The present Conservative government caters to Alberta interests more than the previous Liberal government catered to Quebec. In both cases Ontario gets screwed in the process.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:


      A recent study by Deloitte regarding impact of the oil sands on the Canadian economy concluded the following (quote from page 5):

      1) $2.1 trillion in economic benefits, including $783 billion in taxes to be paid over the next 25 years.
      2) Approximately 905,000 jobs by 2035 (almost 22,000 in Ft. McMurray alone in 2011)
      3) Approximately $5 billion per year in supplies and services spent outside Alberta, with concentrations in BC, Ontario and Quebec.

      Want to see Ontario get screwed, along with BC and Quebec, out of a wealth of jobs and opportunities?

      Then vote Liberal or NDP in 2015.

      • doconnor says:

        Studies like these are flawed because it doesn’t take into account the effect of a rising Canadian dollar caused by oil exports which would destroy far more jobs then the oil industry would create. See here

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          Please don’t refer me to “progressive” economics. That’s about the equivalent of basing wildlife management on a “Bambi” movie.

          Good grief!

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            Next weeks lecture from Professor Cranbrook will be Tin Foil: not just a hat anymore

        • TrueNorthist says:

          Lets see now, who to believe… A political organisation pushing an agenda, or one of the world’s most trusted auditing firms? Hmmmmm.

          • doconnor says:

            If the progressive econiminist’s analysis is flawed, then you should be able the identify the problems with it, just as I have identified the problem with Deliotte’s analysis, rather then using ad honamin attacks.

          • TrueNorthist says:

            No ad hom there, your just sore that I exposed the bias. And absolutely no need to analyze anything Prog-Econ has to say as their results are predictable and predetermined.

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            One exposing the bias my arse. You are chock full of bias Mr Ad Hominem attacks

          • doconnor says:

            94 cents is still well above what purchasing price parity says it should be at, 80 cents. The article does little to deny Dutch Desease.

            Using oil money for pet projects may not be ideal, but it is still better then handing it over to forgin billionairs like we do now.

          • TrueNorthist says:

            “Using oil money for pet projects may not be ideal, but it is still better then handing it over to forgin billionairs like we do now.”

            Quite right. Do not assume, as some here quite blindly do, that I am happy with the way our government is handling resource extraction. I am not. I have said many times — here and elsewhere — that we are in fact being royally screwed. I have also stated that I find aspects of the Norway model vastly superior to what we are doing now. But saying that Canada is suffering from Dutch Disease is simply incorrect. Our dollar is strong for several obvious reasons that your source either deceptively misinterprets or intentionally ignores, more for political reasons than economic. I find Deloitte’s analysis to be quite persuasive, while also disagreeing with some of Al’s political conclusions. I am simply pointing out that Progressive-economics.ca is hiding behind the hard-shell of ideology, where facts can neither penetrate nor matter in the first place.

          • TrueNorthist says:

            I should also apologise doconnor, for the sarcasm in some of my responses above. It was somewhat unintended but nevertheless completey unwarranted.

    • Bobby says:

      Ontario screwed itself….the majority of those who voted helped in that effort.

    • Reality.Bites says:

      There’s a simple truth that Alberta voters have never been able to grasp: If you vote for one party en masse and refuse to ever vote for any other, NO party has the slightest reason to do a damn thing for you. Ever.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        You ever lived in Alberta? I have, for 13 years, including when the NEP got jammed up their butts.

        Albertans work hard, play hard, and never forget who screwed them, and who didn’t.

        • Reality.Bites says:

          It’s hard not to forget who screwed you when everyone did.

          The big difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals is the Liberals never promised Alberta anything.

        • Kaspar Juul says:

          Holding grudges is nothing to be proud of Raveen

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        I have this little fantasy I indulge every so often.

        It’s called: Turn off the taps.

        Sadly, to bring everyone back down to earth and a sense of reality, the first thing required is one massive kick to the groin just to get their attention.

        I dare say, half those posting on this forum likely would find themselves unemployed inside of several weeks, but probably sooner.

        Then, once everyone finally understood just how really blessed we are to have all this wealth at our fingertips, and just how critical it is to our standard of living that we take so bloody much for granted, we could finally get back once again to conducting business like adults.

        Sure, it’ll never happen.

        But one can dream, eh?

      • Al in Cranbrook says:


        What I do remember is back in the ’60s one of the planks of the Socred platform was to build pipeline capacity to move Alberta oil to eastern Canada. Both the Libs and PCs laughed it off because Arab oil could be imported much cheaper.

        What I also remember is the formation of OPEC, who then put the screws to the west circa ’74, and suddenly oil was a lot more valuable…or expensive as the case may be.

        What I remember, too, is that, faced with this suddenly expensive oil from OPEC, P.E.T. and company rather suddenly considered Alberta’s oil…the stuff they didn’t care much about prior…to be Canada’s oil. But more to the point, eastern Canada’s oil, and if not the oil itself, certainly the profits to be generated thereby, or the price break they thought they deserved just because.

        And thus I remember the NEP. You want to know how that went down, just spend a bit of time talking to Alberta business people who went through it. (…and God’s sake don’t mention you’re a Liberal while having this chat, just sayin’)

        Lastly, I remember a considerable number of arrogant Ontarians who insisted on claiming credit for making Alberta what it became in the ’80s…which was generally enough to make most Albertans pretty much seethe with anger.

        Liberal is a four letter word to this day in much of Alberta, and trust me, they earned it, in spades.

      • Kaspar Juul says:

        Is it cranbrook story hour?

        Back to the anecdotes again. If it can’t be backed up then it doesn’t prove anything

      • ottlib says:

        Al and Les, I know as Conservatives from Alberta you like to deny the origins of Alberta’s current financial success but denying something does not make it false or fantasy.

        The simple fact is about 40+ years ago everybody knew that Alberta was sitting on a huge reserve of oil. The only problem was a most of it was trapped in oilsands. Back then no technology existed to extract that oil from the sand so it was essentially worthless. There was hope. Some people had ideas of how to build technology to extract it but the cost estimates on that development scared off the private oil companies. They just could not develop the technology and make money at the same time even with OPEC tripling the price of oil overnight.

        That meant that governments had to step in. Alberta in the 1970’s was a “have-not” province so it could not do it. So, it was up to the Federal government in Ottawa. They signed some deals with the Alberta government and the private oil companies to begin development of that technology with Ottawa footing the lion’s share of the bill.

        Al, I know you have problems with Mr. Trudeau’s motives for agreeing to this but it is simple really. Like every other country Canada was adversely impacted by the actions of OPEC. He saw a home grown solution to that problem and acted upon it for what he believed was the good of the country. I know he was a real bastard for believing a PM should govern for the benefit of all Canadians instead of just his base but such was the mindset of Federal governments back then. Although, I do agree with you that the NEP was bad policy. It was wrongheaded in its approach and hamfisted in its implementation. It should never have seen the light of day but it did unfortunately. That is how it goes sometimes.

        Alberta’s current success is the result of the hard work and dedication of its residence. That is a simple truth. However, it was the actions of a Liberal PM 40 years ago that greased the wheels to allow them to realize that success. There is no denying that. (Which I am sure will not stop either Al or Les from doing so anyway.) Without either one Alberta would not be where it is today.

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      C’mon, Les! Get with the program! Albertans are greedy, trying to hog at least a little bit of all that wealth they’re earning to themselves. Shame!!!

      BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan stroke the cheques, and, save for NFLD, eastern Canada cashes ’em…so they can pay for all those lovely “progressive” budgets, which nevertheless they still can’t balance in spite of the free lunches.

      My favorite example of shameless hypocrisy happens in Quebec, where there’s a moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development for the sake of…this is so touching, makes me get like all *sniff* misty…not contributing to climate change. So, alternatively, they suck up $8 billion / year worth of equalization, funded almost entirely by Alberta’s, BC’s, and Saskatchewan’s, and now NFLD’s, oil and gas.

      “Oh, those nasty oil sands! Just terrible!”

      “Okay, you don’t get any more money from them!”

      “Hey!! That’s no fair!!! Oh, look what you made me do! Now I’m so upset I spilled my latte, with extra foam and chocolate sprinkles, all over myself!”


  8. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Two words: Carbon Tax.

    And we all know how that finally played out in Australia, eh?

    With gas approaching, if not already exceeding, $1.50/liter, and no sign of it backing off any time soon, I’m reasonably certain the majority of Canadians aren’t going to embrace an across the board hike in the cost of living…and for no more good reason than a bunch of climate change bull****.

    Bi-elections mean little, and the lower the turnout, the less they mean.

    • Curtis in Calgary says:

      “…and for no more good reason than a bunch of climate change bullshit …”

      Hey there Angry Al. Are you in favour of pollution? Ultimately, a global human desire to lower carbon emissions is a global human desire to lower pollution. One result of this particular pollution is climate change. You may not agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence, but it’s happening. Denial is not a strategy.

      Let’s change the argument from climate change to pollution reduction. In the 1970s, those dreaded environmentalists didn’t call for measures to halt “liquid change” in the Great Lakes and beyond. They campaigned against pollution in our lakes and waterways. It worked because NO ONE is in favour of POLLUTION. Do you want the clean skies over Cranbrook to look like the skies of Hamilton in the 70s or the orange-brown hue over Calgary when an inversion layer traps our carbon pollution? No? I thought so.

      http://wpmedia.fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/calgary-smog.jpg?w=620 An image taken through our carbon smog less than 2 kilometres from the office towers shrouded in smog.

      Oh, and in Canada it’s spelt litre.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:


        Virtually nothing to do with CO2. Nevertheless, the media insists on a handy photo of “smog” ridden or horizons over cities when babbling on about climate change. Total, and certainly deliberate, misrepresentation.

        If all the kabillions of dollars that have been blown out asses over CO2 had been instead dedicated to controlling and correcting of actual pollution, the world certainly would be a helluva lot better off for it.

        • Kaspar Juul says:

          Wikipedia is not a valid source. Come on it never worked for Tulk

          • Al in Cranbrook says:

            Well, Kaspar, how about this novel idea…

            You provide information to the contrary, that says the Wiki info is wrong.

            Novel, because it would be the first time you ever, EVER contributed something to a discussion here…you know, besides chronic ankle biting and insults.

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            Funny that you refer to that tired old tactic Al.

            No you defend your claim. Wikipedia is not a valid source and you have to prove your own bs theory there lazybones.

            Prove me wrong when someone hasn’t proven themselves full stop is not proof in the least

          • Al in Cranbrook says:



          • Kaspar Juul says:

            You’re absolutely right Al you predictably dodged having to prove yourself.

            What’s next are you going to submit your coloring books as proof?

      • TrueNorthist says:


        Pollution must be eliminated, but trying to control CO2 emmissions is not only nuts, it’s suicidal.

        • Kaspar Juul says:

          That article doesn’t back you up in the least. You are trying to compare volcanic emissions (which are out of our control) with emissions created by human impact. Nowhere in that article is there any claims about control of CO2 emissions for industry or vehicles or any human activity yet you claim it as proof for your statement.

          That’s not only poor research but an extremely lazy attitude towards the ecological impact of humans. To claim something costs a lot and is economically detrimental is one thing. To claim that we can’t at least try to control our own emissions because our industry is akin to a volcano is just nuts.

          What’s next True Northist, throwing vestal virgins into a volcano to appease Vulcan or maybe your new god Economix

          • Sniper says:

            And Canada only emits 1.9% of total global GHGs which is insignificant compared to the 10% annual increases of China’s 24% of total global GHGs — and 10% of 24% is 2.4% increase to total global GHGs by China.


            ( Maybe you, Suzuki, Gore, should go to China and demonstrate against their GHGs increases, in Tiananmen Square.)

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            If sit on your hands is you ring Sniper, I hope you enjoy a life of mediocrity.

    • Bobby says:

      I read somewhere that 48% of the 15% turnout in Ontario means that 7.5% thought the Liberals earned their vote.

      Speaking of low turnout.

      • Kaspar Juul says:

        Speaking of convenient truthy-math.

        • TrueNorthist says:

          Show us where his math is suspect Einstein. You know what? I am starting to simply skip over what you write, because all you do is regurgitate childish cheap-shots that somebody else wrote several weeks ago. How old are you, seven?

          • Kaspar Juul says:

            Calm down conbot. His math is suspect because it starts with “I read somewhere”. What does that mean? Why should anyone accept somewhere as valid proof?

            It seems you’re more apt to believe anyone that throws up numbers and says something that fits your narrow view. That’s weak sauce

            But it gets under your skin.

  9. Ridiculosity says:

    And if the afore-mentioned door happens to Harper on his way out?

    I’m good with that.

    • Matt says:

      You need to look beyond the numbers.

      Example – First quarter 2014.
      The Liberals claim to have set a fundraising record. That isn’t exactly true. The had their policy convention in February and according to their own website, “A portion of the registration fee is considered a donation to the Liberal party”

      If you look at the number of donations that matched one of the registration amounts, that portion of the registration fee considered a donation was 100%.

      Same thing with the leadership convention. In the quarters where they have nothing going on to artificially inflate the numbers, their quarterly fundraising averages the same it has for years.

  10. Apostate says:

    Maybe the pretender to the throne, Jason Kenney, will take heart in Kathleen Wynne’s victory, and help give the leader “the heave” sooner than later…..

  11. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    I remain in my deluded world — where I believe I practically know this Prime Minister better than he knows himself. If that actually is the case, don’t ever expect a Harper resignation.

    The PM likely remains convinced that he can win against Justin with both hands tied behind his back. Guess that means that there are more than just one person who are deluded. LOL.

  12. Matt says:

    Got a “10 percenter” in the mail from my CPC MP today.

    Interesting thing – for the first time since Trudeau won the Liberal leadership, it WASN’T about Trudeau.

    It was about Mulcair.

  13. que sera sera says:

    Can someone please direct me to Kinsella’s website. It appears I’ve accidentally stumbled into a putrid nest of Small (Nearly) Dead Conservative Animals.

  14. debs says:

    I think Kaspar Juul is Joe the shirtless Jogger. Go Kaspar, fight the right:)
    That or Kaspar Juul might be WK under a pseudonym, anyhow Keep it up, its great watching you take on every argument in under 100 characters, and win:)
    Ernest Hemmingway meets Clarence Darrow

  15. Other Hockey Dad says:

    Kenney went to Bilderberg 2014. It’s a done deal, he’s at least next leader of Con’s, possibly even next PM.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.