Thunder Bay – Vote Buying Begins…Again

Thunder Bay agencies receive funding under new Canada homelessness strategy

Two Thunder Bay social service agencies will receive millions of dollars in funding over the next five years as part of Canada’s new homelessness strategy.

Under the recently-launched initiative, the Lakehead Social Planning Council and Thunder Bay Indigenous Friendship Centre will receive a combined total of about $5 million in funding over the next five years.

In the Friday announcement, the government said the funding for the two agencies began rolling out on April 1.

In a media release, the government said the Reaching Home model will be community-based, with funding going directly to municipalities and local agencies.

“Communities and organizations know best how we can reduce homelessness across the country and here in
northwestern Ontario,” said Patty Hajdu, the MP for Thunder Bay-Superior North and federal minister of employment, workforce development and labour.

“Reaching Home will give our partners more flexibility and resources so that everyone has a fair chance at success.”

Reaching Home was officially launched on April 1, as a replacement for the federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy. It’s part of the national housing strategy and its aim is to reduce chronic homelessness in Canada by 50 per cent by 2028, the government said. – Tbnewswatch

article website here

Is it just my imagination or is Patty Hajdu spending a lot of time recently handing out tens of millions of those dollars to us, the great unwashed?  Tens of millions of dollars taken from the few people who still pay taxes at the point of a gun?   And we should be sooo grateful for this act of kindness and generosity (giving back our own money taken from us at the point of a gun)  that we will vote for her in the coming federal election?  Is that what she is doing?

Its amazing how many things get funded prior to an election, provincial or federal.   Not vote buying?

The problem is that this practice is tried and true and works.  That is how stupid the voters are.

PS: Why the Thunder Bay Police Service did not ask the Federal Government for that $1 million it needed to implement the OIPRD recommendations is beyond me.  NOW is the time to publicly ask for money from Ottawa.

It ticks all of the boxes: social issues, Indigenous issues, crime issues.

previous related posts here

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

12 Responses

  1. bill westly
    bill westly at | | Reply

    didn’t work for the con man Wynne though, out on her butt!!! Next!!!

  2. Jake Gittes
    Jake Gittes at | | Reply

    You raise two separate points.

    Vote buying. Unfortunately, this has been a feature of every single form of government the human race has ever had. Even in totalitarian regimes – perhaps modern day China – the regime gets its’ “legitimacy” on providing great economic growth, in the belief there will be a revolt if it doesn’t.

    I don’t like vote buying, but if you can think of an alternative, or way around it, I am sure you would be on to something.

    Secondly, the idea that taxes are obtained “at the point of a gun”…Well, yes… but so is everything else. Ultimately, if you do not pay for something at a store, you may be arrested – at the point of a gun. I don’t know of many retailers, or service providers who are profit oriented and work on the “honour system”…I don’t beleive many governments do, either.

    Taxes are needed for everything from the police, fire department, healthcare, education, Defense, sewage treatment, clean water, pollution regulation, roads, air traffic control, stop signs, courts, land registry (this is a good one for all the survivalists who have purchased a plot of land that is their ‘sovereign territory” – it is surveyed, registered, and backed by courts, and the law of the granting jurisdiction. I presume they would be OK if their neighbor had more guns and took the property…Of course not, they would run to the police to help them get it back) you name it.

    How would you raise money for these things? The “honour system?” Some would pay, others would not. How would you get all the users who didn’t pay, to pay (and hence violating the implied social contract)…send the police? They have guns.

    So if you can name an alternative way to raise taxes (and enforce it for those that do not want to pay), again, we are all ears.

  3. Jake Gittes
    Jake Gittes at | | Reply

    I totally agree with you, corporations, organizations etc., should not be receiving grants to do things they likely would have done any way. And if it needs government money, it probably was not a great business idea in the first place.

    I see you did not comment on my thoughts with collecting taxes “at the point of a gun”….Thanks for agreeing with me.

    In all cases, if you do not like the law, or how government is run, the way to change it is at the ballot box.

  4. Jake Gittes
    Jake Gittes at | | Reply

    Do I see differences between Trudeau, and Harper?

    You can start with the OECD investigation of the Liberal party for corruption – never happened under Harper…I could go on…Even Trudeau’s own transparency administrator said that Trudeau was worse than Harper. Harper had a balanced budget during his last year. etc., etc.etc. perfect? NO, Better than Trudeau – yes.

    As for “majority” governments…as soon as you have a 3rd party, you are extremely unlikely to get anything more than a plurality…besides, what is so magical about 50% + 1? If you are in the “minority” opinion, you will still not agree with what is going on.

    Anyway you cut it, government is imperfect. What is a “majority? Of potential votes? Of votes cast? Of seats won?

    Here is one. Because the Canadian constitution guarantees a the number of seats a province had when the Constitution was enacted in 1982, 6 of ten provinces are grossly over represented in Parliament. 3 of ten provinces (Ont, Alta, BC) are grossly underrepresented.

    Most seats in Canada are won by around 40% of the vote cast. If all you needed 170 seats ((338 / 2) + 1), and won them with 40% of the votes cast in each seat, and did it in the least populated seats, a party could theoretically win a “majority” with around 15.2% of the votes cast. The 170 least populated seats, only represent 38% of the population of Canada, not 50%. Would it be right? No. Would it be legal? Yes.

    So I ask again, define “majority”….

    1. Jake Gittes
      Jake Gittes at | | Reply

      Very funny..

      The posts from 9:06 onward are not mine.

      You can continue to claim you are open to other opinions, but you obviously have a very very think skin, and simply cannot deal with disagreement.

      You are good photographer, along the lines of “weegee”, or Diane Arbus”….that is your strength.

  5. Jake Gittes
    Jake Gittes at | | Reply

    The 9:06 comment is still up, which is also not mine.

    1. Do you not review each comment?

    2. Do you not match them to the email submitted? That would have tipped it off..

    3. Most “boards” I am familiar with do not allow duplicate names. Is this a feature you can switch on and off?

    4. You replied to them, or did they fake that as well?

    5. I would have thought the change in “tone” would have also been a key tip off something was amiss…

    All very curious…

  6. Jake Gittes
    Jake Gittes at | | Reply

    Thanks for the consideration, and action/response.

    I try to back up anything I post, and try to take care in not making personal attacks as we all should. Criticizing a politician, a celebrity, or another opinion site, is allowed, going after a host – you – or another poster personally, (not their opinion, that is another thing) is not.

    “personal attacks are the sign of a bankrupt argument, and intellect”….I can’t remember where I read that…

    Again, thank you for the consideration.

Leave a Reply

enter code *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.