Which is much easier if both parties are suffering from the bad laws, otherwise we get more bad laws as they benefit the more powerful party and repress everyone else.

Good, what goes around comes around and here in Canada we've been being sued by American investors for banning poisons and such.

Recently in the news again was the story of someone who spent 23 years in jail for a rape that he didn't commit (the real rapist finished his sentence by dieing). It was the usual, a drifter or other low life in the wrong place at the wrong time and a police force/DA who really wanted a conviction. It happens enough that just because someone was convicted is not a guarantee that they're guilty. There's also been quite a few people on death row exonerated of their crimes, often by DNA evidence.

You still need land to build so it's tear down a 10-20 story building and kick the renters out or buy up a lot of houses and either way the developer is going to want a return on their investment so they'll build luxury condos and sell for half a million and up.

Wonder if it's like here where most building permits involve tearing down cheap rental property to replace with million dollar condos and many people complaining about getting kicked out of their apartments with no where to go.
Problem with coastal cities is most all the land is already being used and the way to make money is to sell to ever richer people. Even in suburbia there are no rentals being built though you might be able to buy a 300 sq-ft condo for $100,000.

I also have never voted for a candidate that has won :) and have dual citizenship (UK) and having spent almost all my life in Canada would not vote anywhere else. Wife is also First Nations as well as my son.

Bill-C51 is the official number. The full name is

You can start here, https://openparliament.ca/bill... and I guess I should actually read the full bill as well, unluckily this government likes to pass big bills which makes for hard reading, especially for non-lawyers.

I'd guess that Beck gets a lot of income from his special events and needs the tax write offs.Seems to be pretty common with foundations (being tax havens). There's been talk here of just getting rid of the tax write off for donations as the government has really been using the taxman to punish those they don't like and one of their favourites is getting really anal about what a charitable organization is and once one government does it so will the next.
Personally I like the local Mennonites, all labour is volunteer so they only have small overhead and seem to support much the same things as I do (eg homelessness locally and various disaster relief) and don't push their beliefs except through the action of being nice people.

Actually it worked pretty good, the number of parties in Parliament doubled, we had a string of minority governments which slowed down on the ass fucking from the politicians and I prefer it to the current government spending 100's of millions of dollars of tax payer money to tell us what a good job they've done.
Elections weren't totally funded from the public purse either, though donations are limited to only from flesh and blood people and limited to just over a $1000.

You could come to Canada where it's the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) being used to target environmentalists and left leaning groups, have declared that anyone anti-oil is a terrorist, if you object to the government monitoring everything then this week you must be a terrorist (before, you were supporting the bullies and before that, the child molesters). Passed an anti-terrorist law that makes the patriot act look tame (law enforcement can break any law except rape in chasing down terrorists), honoured their promise of open government by being so secretive that we're jealous that you guys have the open Obama and lately want to charge anti-Israel groups with hate crimes as talking boycott is not just exercising free speech.
The truth is that all the governments seem to be doing the same thing.

You forgot Newfoundland time, which is a half hour different from Atlantic.

Australia still publicly funds elections? Here in Canada, the first thing the Conservatives did when they got their majority was cancel that. They also got the Supreme Court to rule that before the writ is actually dropped, there are no limits to spending so it's getting to be like the States where the election campaign starts the day after the polls close and since they have the money to run ads constantly for years, they get their message out about how horrible the others are. Wish there was some sort of truth in advertising laws when it comes to elections as they outright lie in some of their ads.
Back on topic, the pollsters have done quite bad in 3 out of 4 Provincial elections here, getting the results totally wrong. It seems partly due to the supporters of the side that didn't do as well as the predictions staying home on election day.

And why the hell is posting failing due to my "failing to prove I'm human". Oh, I seem to have been logged out. Slashdot is really trying to drive users away

In Canada, reporting results before all the polling stations are closed has been illegal for quite a while to prevent that. Now it's changing as it is too easy to get early results from outside the country and while the times the polls close can be juggled a bit, it is a problem when a country stretches across 5.5 time zones.

Sadly it has taken government legislation/regulation to stop people from shitting in the drinking water (there was a lot of denial-ism about the idea of little invisible bugs making people sick and the idea of spending money to separate the sewer and drinking water systems) as well to force cooks (and Doctors) to wash their hands and the meat industry to not package rotten meat and rat poison in sausages as well as an almost endless list of other shortcuts that people do to save time and money.
I hate government regulation yet I also hate the fact that people/business don't think long term and will deny the evidence that some moves such as shitting in the drinking water are bad. Ideally science would show evidence and people would act rationally based on that evidence rather then going into denial.