Newfoundland’s Chief Electoral Officer, Bruce Chalk, suspended voting in 18 of 40 districts for the February 13 provincial election citing COVID-19—despite just four deaths in ten months and no hospital strain. Conservative leader Chess Crosby flip-flopped from calling it unfair to endorsing full suspension, while legal expert Manny Montenegrino argues prolonged lockdowns now lack Charter justification, with deaths far lower than feared and hospitals never overwhelmed. He warns of potential class action lawsuits against governments for overreach, noting Canada’s weak opposition and elite peer pressure stifled dissent, unlike the U.S. Audience criticism targets Erin O’Toole’s leadership, accused of abandoning conservative values amid internal divisions. The episode reveals how pandemic policies may have outlived their democratic or public health rationale, leaving fundamental freedoms—and political trust—eroded. [Automatically generated summary]
You know there's an election in two days in Newfoundland, yet today they decided to suspend the elections because some people have come down with the coronavirus.
I should tell you that not a single person in the entire province of Newfoundland is in the hospital.
There's just a few cases of sniffles out there, but they have delayed the election.
I'll give you the details in a second.
First, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's just $8 a month or $80 if you get the whole year in advance.
Go to RebelNews.com and click subscribe.
It's important because not only do you get the video version of this podcast, which is pretty cool.
A couple other videos each week of premium content, but that $8 a month, if enough people do it, that keeps us going.
That pays our bills because we don't take any money from Trudeau, I'll tell you that.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, a Newfoundland bureaucrat suspended voting in their provincial election, and he blamed the pandemic.
It's February 11th and this is the Answer Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government a lot of publisher is because it's my bloody right to do so.
There is not a single person in the hospital in all of Newfoundland and Labrador from the virus.
Not one.
It's zero.
It's a very large province, as large as the country of Japan by square kilometers, and not one person is hospitalized from the bug.
And in the past 10 months since this whole thing started, the grand total number of people who have died from the virus in the province is four, not 40 or 400, four people in a province with more than half a million souls in it.
Now, every life is precious, but I mean, for comparison, not even kidding, the annual death toll from Newfoundlanders driving into a moose on the highway is about the same.
There's a lot of moose there.
And yet today, without consultation, without approval from the legislature, the unelected unaccountable elections bureaucrat asked the unelected unaccountable public health bureaucrat to simply call off voting in the Newfoundland election that is scheduled for two days from today.
It's in two days.
And these liberal bureaucrats just decided to suspend democracy just because.
Here's the CBC state broadcaster, which couldn't be happier about it.
Newfoundland and Labrador election delayed for nearly half the province due to COVID-19.
Yeah, but that's not really why it was delayed, right?
Because not a single person in the entire blessed province is in the hospital from COVID-19, is there?
COVID is the excuse.
It's not the reason.
That's different.
I've got to start using that as an excuse.
Sure, officer, I may have been speeding, but it was due to COVID.
Oh, teacher, you know, the dog ate my homework.
It was COVID.
It's the new excuse, isn't it?
Let me read a bit from the state broadcaster.
The chief electoral officer of Newfoundland and Labrador has postponed voting on Saturday for 18 of the 40 districts as the province deals with a rapidly worsening outbreak in Metro St. John's.
The election cannot go ahead in the districts, all on the Avalon Peninsula, as COVID-19 cases have caused considerable operational impacts, said Bruce Chalk in a release Thursday afternoon.
Many election workers have resigned out of fear of interacting with the public on Election Day.
We cannot hold traditional polls without the support of these people, Chalk said.
Got it.
So grocery store workers can work every day.
Delivery truck workers can work every day.
I'd say nurses could work every day, but as I pointed out, there actually are no virus patients in the entire province's hospitals anywhere.
So, you know, I suppose nurses would be ready for it, but there's no one in the hospital.
But these government workers who have known about the virus for some time now are having a little pout.
And, I don't know, wearing a mask or even a full hazmat suit, that's not good enough for them.
Oh, and you'd better believe they're going to be paid in full for playing hooky.
What a disgrace.
Following Fitzgerald's update last Thursday afternoon, Chalk said in-person voting would be rescheduled in two weeks if public health conditions improve.
However, based on the continually increasing COVID cases being reported in the region, there is no guarantee that we will be able to administer in-person voting safely at that time, Chalk said.
It will entirely depend on the province's COVID-19 situation.
Got it.
So the Premier's name in Newfoundland now, in case you're wondering, it's Chalk.
I've never heard of him before either.
He's not on any ballot.
He's not the leader of any party.
I guess he's the leader of the lockdown party because being on a ballot wouldn't even matter because this Chalk guy, he will determine whether or not the election will even proceed and how and if and when, and he'll let you know if you're lucky.
And Trudeau's CBC state broadcaster thinks this is normal.
Say, do you think this would work if it were a Conservative Party in power?
Would Stephen Harper have been able to get away with this?
And you can be completely sure that Justin Trudeau is taking very, very careful notes, isn't he?
And I know from some personal experience that Elections Canada is run by partisan hacks.
You might recall they are the people who interrogated me for an hour for publishing a book about Trudeau called The Libranos, and they convicted me because they said it was mean to him.
So yeah, completely non-partisan folks there, eh?
I'll read a little more.
Special ballots extended.
Special ballot deadlines are being extended to allow more people to vote by mail, regardless of their district.
People can now apply to vote by special ballot until Saturday at 8 p.m. Newfoundland time, the same hour in-person voting wraps up at unaffected polls.
People can apply through an Elections Newfoundland online form or by downloading an application and submitting it either by email or fax.
They must also be able to show the necessary identification and proof of address.
So just download it online.
I mean, I'm sure that won't be abused.
I'm sure you won't see, oh, I don't know, liberal organizers going into, let's say, a senior's home and downloading a ballot for 100 different people and just filling on out for them and harvesting those votes.
Hey, I'll take care of that for you.
Don't you worry your pretty little head.
I'll pop this in the mail for you.
You can be sure I will.
They've learned it from the Democrats in the United States.
They've learned it from Joe Biden.
There's no need for Dominion voting systems.
Mail ballots are where the action is.
Just mail it in and just make the change two days before the election.
I just want to read one more line or two, which is a testament to how stupid this all is.
The pandemic landscape in the province has shifted rapidly, going from a few scattered cases of COVID-19 to confirmed community transmission in the St. John's area, and Thursday's milestone of the largest single-day confirmed case total of 100, nearly doubling the previous records taken the day before.
The soaring caseload has resulted in mass staffing shortages at elections in Newfoundland with dozens of people, many of them elderly, set to work the polls on Saturday, dropping out or others placed into self-isolation and unable to work.
One of Chalk's own senior staff is now in isolation.
But I say again, there's not a single person in the hospital.
You've got 100 new cases of the flu in a province of half a million people.
Are you saying all 100 of them are election workers?
There's no nursing crisis.
There's no beds crisis.
There's no hospital.
100 new cases out of half a million people.
And you're shutting down the election.
There is a political crisis sprung on voters two days before the vote with the media party running cover for it, but there's not a health crisis.
I'll read a bit more.
The power to postpone, while Chalk had told CBC News earlier on Thursday he has some power to be able to postpone an election in the letter.
He wrote of his limited ability to do so under legislation.
In the letter, he called for Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Janice Fitzgerald, to use her significant and clear powers to act.
To conduct a fair election, she must exercise those powers to delay the election, he said in the letter.
Got it.
So he has the power or she has the power.
Just ask them.
Neither of them are lawyers.
The CBC asked them.
They didn't ask anyone else, it seems.
No law professors, no one who might say, we ran Newfoundland's elections during two world wars.
We could handle it then.
We could handle it now.
The conservative leader, Chess Crosby, he's the son of John Crosby.
He says he thinks it's unfair that half the ridings in the province will be delayed and have mail-in votes or whatever.
And he's right.
But then he says this, he tweeted this.
Delaying the election is the right thing to do.
However, the election must be suspended for every electoral district.
Anything short of that is an affront to our democracy.
Got it.
So the election must be delayed to save the election.
So you don't even want it half delayed.
You want it all delayed.
And you're the conservative.
Delaying half the election isn't fair, but delaying the whole election is fair.
Hey, Chess, I think you're doing this whole democracy thing wrong.
I think you're doing the whole opposition thing wrong.
But Justin Trudeau and Stephen Gobo and Gerald Butz are watching.
They're watching the utter lack of pushback.
They're watching the state broadcasters smooth the path for the suspensions of democracy.
And really, as Justin Trudeau's own dad once said, what are you going to do about it?
How far would you go with that?
How far would you extend that?
Just watch me.
Yeah, I'll bet you a dollar that this happens in the spring in the federal election, too.
Stay with us for more.
Welcome back.
Well, they are suspending voting in 17 electoral districts in Newfoundland.
This is a decision made not by the Premier, not by the legislature, not by a vote or even a regulation approved by the cabinet.
It's just an order by the public health officer saying, you know what?
We don't need to have in-person voting, even though there is not a single person in all of Newfoundland in the hospital from the virus, not one, in a province the size of the country of Japan.
And I put it to you that the pandemic is no longer about public health.
Facts Have Changed00:09:31
It's about law and power and politicians turning a crisis into an opportunity.
But where is the law on the other side?
Where is the Charter of Rights?
The Charter does not have a pandemic exemption clause.
Even emergency legislation must be done in accordance with the Charter to help us navigate these issues.
We turn naturally to our friend Manny Montenegrino, who not only knows politics, but he knows law, having been formerly a very senior boss at one of Canada's largest national law firms.
Manny, great to see you.
Again, thanks for joining us today.
Nice to be with you, Ezra.
Well, the Charter of Rights is not absolute.
It says in Section 1 that all the freedoms are subject to limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
So that sort of wiggle room.
It says you can on certain occasions infringe our rights if it meets a very high test.
Do you think that the infringements on our liberties that all these lockdown premiers are imposing, do you think they meet that very careful test of section one of the Charter of Rights?
Well, you know, let's start, Ezra, as we always do at the beginning.
About a year ago, we faced this new virus.
And the language back then, Ezra, is so much different than the language now.
And I think back then, the province of Ontario and every other province was starting to look at what they can possibly do with this pandemic and the growth of it.
And we started with flattening the curve.
And that was a concept that was thrown out by the health experts.
And there was only one purpose.
And the purpose was really simple.
And that is we cannot have deaths or severely ill people because we cannot attend to them in overcrowded hospitals.
And that was simple.
And that was understood.
And it was a two-week lockdown.
That would have met section one of the charter because it's very simple.
It's limited in scope.
It has a purpose.
And the purpose is that you can't have your hospitals under siege like it was in Italy and maybe some other, just a few jurisdictions.
And that was, so that would have met the test.
But since then, the principle that we stopped and we took away people's rights, which is basically the right to earn a living, the right to have your business for two weeks.
We've extended it, extended it, and we moved away from the principle of flattening the curve to other principles.
And I think because we moved away from the first principle makes it not fall within the charter anymore, if you can follow my argument.
Yeah, well, and the facts have changed.
We now know more about this disease.
We know it targets the very elderly, those, and to use the fancy word, that have comorbidities.
That means they're very sick from one, two, three additional things.
And this, while we're no happier that these people are dying rather than those people, any death is a tragedy.
But now we have more information.
So we know that in all of Canada, I don't think there's been a single person under 20 who's died from the virus.
There might have been one.
So we know that the risk there is almost zero, whereas the average age of those who have died is over 80.
And again, that doesn't make me happy, but it gives us useful information where to focus our policy.
And Manny, I would put it to you that that evolution in our understanding of the virus changes the legal formula too, because now, locking down a school, locking down a restaurant populated by people in their 20s and 30s, locking down people who are at extremely low risk, it's not quite as demonstrably justifiable anymore, is it?
Exactly.
Ezra, you've touched on another point.
Now, let's look at it again.
Let's go back in March of last year.
WHO and the world was saying that the mortality rate and the infection was going to mean somewhere upwards of maybe four to six million deaths in America, 400,000 to 600 deaths in Canada.
That was the best information they had at the time.
So, Ezra, look at what's happened.
We go back in March and they say, look, this is going to be, we don't know how explosive this is going to be.
We don't know how many deaths, but we do know that the hospitals are under siege.
So, two things happened back then.
When you look at the charter tests, if I were examining the doctors, I'd say, what was your thought a year ago?
And the experts were saying, well, we were thinking that maybe 300 to 400,000 deaths in Canada.
Well, that is alarming.
Plus, we were thinking that the hospitals would be under siege.
So you put those two factors together, and then that was the decision for suspending rights.
And at that time, I would argue it was a good decision if that was your evidence.
If three to 400,000 Canadians were going to die, of course you would shut down for two weeks and see where it's going.
Well, the evidence, in fact, two things have happened.
Not only has the experts departed from that baseline, the evidence is that deaths certainly under you for youths, and I have three grandchildren, and deaths under COVID is much less than deaths under the ordinary flu.
I have children in their 30s, and deaths for youths are much less than they are.
So the good news, if you want to call it with COVID, is it's not as lethal for the young and the infants as the ordinary flu.
So, and the other good news is, at least in Ottawa, and I've looked at the numbers in Ontario, the hospitals never exceeded, at least in Ottawa, they never exceeded ICU use of greater than 10%.
Maybe it got to 12, 13%.
But so when I look at what was a test in March, well, it was going to be this disastrous, fast-spreading.
And by the way, 800,000 cases in Canada over a year, and over a 38 million population, it's not as fast spreading as people are saying that it is.
So I look at it.
What was a test done in March of 2020?
And I look at the factors, i.e. death rate and is much less than what we thought or we were told.
And the hospitalization has never peaked.
I mean, in Ontario, I think the ICU has got to 20% capacity.
We're not at 80 or 90 or 100.
So if those were the two factors, then I would ask the experts this question.
If cases was an issue, i.e. how many cases, because that's all we're doing now.
You know, Ontario has to get under our thigh.
If that was the issue that restricts people's freedoms, why wasn't that said in March of 2020?
Only metric in March of 2020 is: we don't want people to die in hospitals because they can't have access to health care.
That has never reached the point anywhere in Canada, perhaps maybe for an hour or two in some downtown Toronto hospital, but never reached that point.
So, to answer your question in a very short term, I don't set the standards as to where you can trample on rights under Section 1 of the Charter.
They did, they said it, and now they must stick to it.
Yeah.
You know, there's so much to chew over there.
I remember in the early days in the United States, there was an impressive gesture by the president, Donald Trump, at the time.
He sent one of those Navy hospital ships to LA and one to New York City as overflow.
So they would empty out the hospitals with people who could be taken care of in those hospital ships.
Like these are massive hospital ships, hundreds of rooms, Navy surgeons.
So they were never even used.
Right.
In Ottawa, the same thing's happened.
I have my mother-in-law that's in the hospital, so we visit her.
My wife visits her daily.
I drop her off.
In Ottawa, they built a pop-up emergency wing for emergency cases.
Now, that's been up and running.
I don't know.
I can't get information on what capacity that's been used at.
All I can see is from the Ottawa Public Health that we've had in COVID cases, I see use of six to about 11 beds of the 110 that we already have, plus we already popped up about 50 or 60 of them.
So I don't see us anywhere near that.
Fundamental Rights vs. Public Health Measures00:03:41
I don't get where we can continue to take away people's right to earn a living, people to enjoy their lives, their fundamental freedoms.
And I don't see where the evidence as set out in March of 2020 is.
Well, let me ask you this because to go to court, you need standing.
You need to be able to say to the judge, here's why I have a right to your time.
Here's why you as a judge should be seized with this matter.
And here's what gives you the power to issue an order of some sort of judgment of this sort.
So you can't just be a busybody or an officious intermeddler.
You have to have skin in the game, I think is what they say in common parlance.
So who would be able to go to court and say, Your Honor, they sold us pig and a poke.
They sold us, they said two weeks to flatten the curve.
They said it's a crisis, but now we see it's something different, but the lockdown's stricter than ever.
Who could go to court and not be thrown out?
Well, I don't, I think the problem with that application of the law is everyone that had their rights breached all thought it was very temporary.
So why would anyone make an application to the court, let's say in May, when they were loosening and you know what, we're going to go back to normal?
No one had thought that their rights would be trampled on for now close to a year.
That's why no application was made.
I mean, if somebody came to my office in May and I said, you know what, this is going to be over.
The governments have figured it out and so on.
Well, so no.
But I think what I think might be available, and you know, Ezra, I know people that I know of a few that have committed suicide because they lost their businesses, okay?
I know many that are struggling because they lost their businesses.
I think that there is an actionable right, perhaps a class action, after all this is said and done for damages for people that were deprived, A, their fundamental right to work, their fundamental freedoms, based on science that kept changing.
So I think that's where the remedy is, if these people can hold on.
And let me be clear.
I mean, in Ontario, I don't get it, but we were under severe, Ontario created, it took seven or eight months to create a detailed color code system, as you know, from green to yellow to orange to red to gray.
And it took forever because people were saying, we want certainty.
Businesses were saying we want certainty.
We will apply with what the law is, but tell us what the certainty is.
And that's fundamental to a democracy: government has to tell you exactly what you can or cannot do.
Failing which, you have the right to do whatever you want because you're a free person.
So finally, we got that.
That was abandoned a month after it was created for some reason.
And now, as you know, in Ontario, the Premier has lifted the stay-at-home order, and three jurisdictions are in green.
Now, if I were a resident or an owner of a business and I'd say, wait a minute, how do we go from shutdown all the way to green, passing by six or five levels?
Levels Of Lockdown Confusion00:08:55
I mean, clearly you acted too late.
You should have put us in red, orange, and so on.
We can't be agreeable.
And I understand Ottawa is going to go to orange.
So all these businesses that could have otherwise been open and the government took so long, do they have an actionable right saying, wait a minute, they can't wait for the last minute to give us back the right to do it.
So I think there's evidence there.
Well, I'm not very familiar with class action lawsuits.
I know historically that's been more an American thing, but it is an act of practice in Canada these days.
And again, I don't have personal experience with it, but my understanding is that those lawyers are aggressive, risk-oriented, often willing to finance complicated, long litigation.
Because if they're going for a class, they're not going to try and collect 100 bucks from 10,000 different clients.
So they have financing in place.
They have teams in place.
They have law firms that are patient with them.
And from what I understand, they're some of the most aggressive litigators.
So they're tough guys.
They're soldiers of fortune.
They're mercenaries in the best meaning of that word.
So my question to you is: where are they?
Where, you know, the legal profession sometimes gets a bad rap.
People call lawyers ambulance changers, sharks.
They say all these epithets referring to the aggressiveness of lawyers.
So where are the aggressive lawyers?
Where are the mercenaries now when we need them?
You know, Ezra, that's a great question.
I'm in shock that there hasn't been a body of people getting together, hiring a lawyer to advance a claim.
I mean, listen, it's tough.
But if you look at it and you say, you know, there are about 50 jurisdictions.
You can go to 100 jurisdictions around the world.
The virus is the same around the world.
California opened up with cases 10 times deaths, 10 times that of Ontario.
Now, of course, they're following the science.
Florida has been opened up since September.
Of course, they're following the science.
Everyone's following the science, but everyone's doing something different.
So it's not science, it's politics.
And I think I would start with the premise that when you take away someone's liberties, you have to do it in the most extreme cautious measures, and you got to return to liberties as soon as you can.
You know, when this started, I was kind of dumbfounded.
Why are they doing a 28-day?
Why not just make a decision every day or every two days so you could return to liberties as fast as you can?
That didn't happen.
So there is a lot of evidence out there and a lot of conflicting signs.
I mean, if you look at just North America, maybe 100 jurisdictions that all dealt with it, they all dealt with it differently.
And as you put it at the beginning of your monologue, here's Newfoundland, doesn't have a person in the hospital, and they're going into crazy shutdown and crazy manipulation of people's rights.
And there isn't a person in hospital.
And we started this whole adventure to prevent people from being overcapacitated in a hospital.
So where's the sense of it now?
And I think, you know, Ezra, you asked in the year 2000, the city of Ottawa brought forward a bylaw, which was a great bylaw.
It was a anti-smoking bylaw and bars and so on.
And I was on the side of the city of Ottawa and we were defending it.
I was, you must, I admired every bar and restaurant got together.
They got hundreds of thousands of dollars and they created a claim against the city to stop what we were doing.
And boy, has things changed in 20 years.
I mean, that was good law.
I mean, the bylaw, of course, passed.
It was based on health.
People are dying of cancer.
You don't need to smoke inside.
But they were fundamentally upset that they had their rights being restricted by government.
But here now, they're being shut down totally.
They can't even work.
And no one's advancing a claim similar as they did in 2000.
I have one explanation.
I think social media has destroyed the liberties of Canadians.
People are afraid to speak about liberty because their business will be destroyed on Twitter, on Facebook saying, oh, look at this.
You just worried about your business.
You want to die.
So instead of fighting for the rights, fighting to keep their business open, people are saying, you know what?
I don't want to get a bad Yelp review.
I don't want something negative to happen.
I better stay silent.
And that silence is killing.
And I mean, literally killing business owners.
Wow.
I think that's a fascinating observation.
You're right.
I mean, I many years ago was involved in some of those battles.
And I know the amount of lawyering and fundraising to protect those smaller freedoms.
Now they have total annihilation of the industry.
And you know what?
I used to fly a fair bit, Manny, and now it's impractical to fly outside of Canada.
Even domestically, they're talking about bringing in restrictions.
Air Canada is being devastated, over a thousand new layoffs.
It breaks my heart.
So many of these folks are not coming back.
Like it will take decades to rebuild some of these industries.
And a lot of restaurants just will never come back.
You talk about pressure on social media.
I think there's one more kind of pressure, and it's peer pressure.
Judges are, in many ways, at the top of society.
Their income, their age, their experience.
They were appointed there by a politician, so they're connected.
They're really at the elite level of society.
And everyone at the elite level of society seems to be unanimous that these lockdowns are great.
The media, the politicians.
And so for a judge to say, I'm going to be the one person in Canada to say the emperor has no clothes here, even if he could find the legal basis and write a beautiful ruling that is sound legally, he would feel the peer pressure of his fellow judges, of law professors, of politicians.
I think it's probably extremely hard for an establishment.
No one's more establishment than a judge.
I think it's probably very hard for a judge to say, I'm going to be the one who stinks up the joint and says enough of this.
I bet that's why we haven't seen a judge do it yet.
No, Ezra, I'm going to defend the judges here.
The case hasn't even got before them.
You know, I would say that, Ezra, if I saw 12 cases being thrown out.
But the few cases that I have seen, and they're in America, there's a Pennsylvania and there's some in Michigan where judges have said this is unconstitutional.
So I think judges, I mean, at least give them a chance.
Right.
You're right.
Now, there'd be a couple in Ontario.
I know Hudson's Bay tried, but you're right.
It hasn't been a lot.
I think we need that.
And the other thing, Ezra, is that we, again, we have the brilliance of this pandemic is, you know, we in Canada need, need official opposition.
We need, our parliamentary system only works if there's a strong, vigorous opposition.
And there isn't any on the federal level and there isn't anything on the province of all.
So here's what we've done, Ezra.
We have this virus that is basically can, the governments can do whatever they want with it.
There is no official opposition because no one wants to be seen to say, well, I don't want.
We need a vigorous discussion.
Let the discussion happen.
And there's no community they don't want.
Like restaurateurs would rather see their businesses and go bankrupt.
And I shouldn't say that there are many that are fighting.
But when you look at the Canadian Restaurant Association or whoever, those bodies, they should have been fighting hard in May saying, look, we'll do all these preventive measures, but you can't take any more freedoms away.
Well, it ended up being these poor people spending tens of thousands of dollars of plexiglass and everything else.
And now they're out of business.
I mean, it's just, it's remarkable.
Mark's Critique of O'Toole00:02:23
And I really do.
Ezra, if I were to sit there and look at it, I'd say, you know, 60% is social media, people that are wonderfully protected with their salaries that are sitting there going after restaurants that dare to open up or dare to profit or dare to feed their families.
And then I'd say the rest of it is that there's no, hey, there was great opposition in America.
They certainly made it the case to get rid of Trump.
But for some reason, there isn't that kind of discussion in Canada.
Yeah, very, very strange days we're in.
Manny, what a pleasure to have you back on the show.
Another master class in the intersection of law and politics, as our friends on the left would say.
But it really is an education every time.
Thank you, my friend, folks.
We've been talking with our old friend Manny Monogrino, who's the CEO of Think Sharp.
And boy, does he ever.
Great to see you, my friend.
We'll have you back anytime.
All right, thank you.
Right on.
Okay, folks, stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back on my show last night.
Ted writes, O'Toole is doing a wonderful job so far at destroying what's left of this Conservative Party.
Yeah, I don't think he wants it to be conservative.
I think I've sort of changed my opinion.
Yesterday I was thinking it's about rivalry and jealousy.
No, I now think he genuinely wants to get rid of anything that smacks of conservativism.
He's pushing Jason Kenney aside.
He sacked Derek Sloan.
He sacked Pierre Polyev.
He's renounced us.
Anything conservative he's abandoning.
He really is making a second Liberal Party.
Joe writes, Pierre Polyev is the only conservative minister worth listening to or following.
Pierre Polyev was the only minister left I would consider voting conservative for.
Yeah, unfortunately he didn't run for leadership.
I wish he had.
I think he would have won, and I think he would have a real chance.
Mark writes, O'Toole is not the right man for the job.
You're right, but I think he's going to get slaughtered in this next election.
I really think so.
Being a nullity, being an echo of the Liberal Party, that's not going to get conservatives to vote for you.
It's not going to get liberals to vote for you either.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of Wall of Us here from Rubber Board Headquarters.