One of my winter jobs will be to search for a newer truck before this one nickels and dimes me to death (i.e. $5K & $10K at a time).

The OP appreciated the truth a bit less. 😀 🤷‍♂️

I had the heater actuator (the baffle that directs the air to floor/defrost...) replaced on my 2010 Tundra recently. That and a fix on my tailgate latch cost $5K+.

The truck is worth less than $10K.

Screenshot in case it's deleted.

Every fact check I've found calls this out as fake.

This assumes they can defeat, or have defeated, the party with a plurality, in a vote on a matter of confidence.

For example, despite the pants-wetting and pearl-clutching of some, it's perfectly legitimate for two parties, neither with a plurality of seats, to come to an agreement and approach the GG to form a government, *provided* they have the confidence of the house.

To return to this question, yes, for many Canadians there's a disconnect and a fundamental misunderstanding about elections and how governments are formed in a Westminster system.

I'm just pointing out to be careful what you wish for. The requirement could potentially keep party leaders outside the house indefinitely, which isn't a great thing, either. Michael Ignatieff didn't even live in the country full time when he was chosen leader.

I understand the sentiment, but remember that it's remarkably common for party leaders to represent ridings where they don't live, initially, at least, Jagmeet Singh and Mark Carney being two of the most recent examples. Leaders are often chosen from outside the existing caucus.

It's always good to remember that we elect individuals to the HOC; we don't elect parties. That may not be our *thinking* when we do it, but that is the foundational concept. The Governor General allows a group of members who can maintain confidence of The House to form a government.