Elections Canada - Please Read post Number 1

Well PP just got Joe Rogan to say that he would vote for him.
If PP can get Joe Rogan to vote for him I would conjecture that that says a lot about PP.

As to MC, well he certainly is not sitting on his rear. Some may not agree with the Liberal platform but MC has certainly changed the way the CDN government is looking at trade and partnerships around the world. Looks to me that he is looking at trade as just that. Trade rather than leverage to get other countries to align with high falloting principals on moral ideas.
Now if we can just get that pipeline to the east coast and bypass the US by going over Lake Superior.
Now if only he could get an interview with Howard Stern , lol. I will admit he is considerably less woke than JT although that's not hard to accomplish. Just think of how many Aeroplan points he would have if he were flying commercial. But really it would be nice to see some of these " Major Projects actually get off the ground. Lots of talk about them but I'm afraid the old adage " talk is cheap" doesn't apply. Have to pay the piper at some point. Tough time to be in charge .
 
Well PP just got Joe Rogan to say that he would vote for him.
If PP can get Joe Rogan to vote for him I would conjecture that that says a lot about PP.

As to MC, well he certainly is not sitting on his rear. Some may not agree with the Liberal platform but MC has certainly changed the way the CDN government is looking at trade and partnerships around the world. Looks to me that he is looking at trade as just that. Trade rather than leverage to get other countries to align with high falloting principals on moral ideas.
Now if we can just get that pipeline to the east coast and bypass the US by going over Lake Superior.
Actually it was Trump and his tariffs that "changed the way the CDN government is looking at trade and partnerships around the world".

I do agree and am somewhat impressed with Carney and his efforts regarding trade talk with various countries but so far it is just talk. The proof is in the pudding and so far no more pudding has materialized than what our previous PM provided. I will give Carney another year to put up or shut up (although I've never seen a politician who would shut up) before I condemn him and his party.
And yes. until such time as someone comes up with a replacement for oil and gas industry's contribution to the GDP, Canada is reliant financially on O&G.
We need that pipeline to the East and the one to the NW. Latest figures show Canada, at the current consumption rates, has 189 years of O&G reserves still in the ground. Get building.
 
Actually it was Trump and his tariffs that "changed the way the CDN government is looking at trade and partnerships around the world".

I do agree and am somewhat impressed with Carney and his efforts regarding trade talk with various countries but so far it is just talk. The proof is in the pudding and so far no more pudding has materialized than what our previous PM provided. I will give Carney another year to put up or shut up (although I've never seen a politician who would shut up) before I condemn him and his party.
And yes. until such time as someone comes up with a replacement for oil and gas industry's contribution to the GDP, Canada is reliant financially on O&G.
We need that pipeline to the East and the one to the NW. Latest figures show Canada, at the current consumption rates, has 189 years of O&G reserves still in the ground. Get building.
Mc's efforts do seem to be paying off somewhat with a softening of China's trade stance and possibly India's. Don't think the western farmers are unhappy with selling grain to CN of the Maritines selling some lobster. Small incremental stuff but positions are changing and they don't change overnight.
No doubt the spending will come up as there are many projects under consideration.
Some complained about our deteriorating military. neglected for a long time. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost it'll take a few dollars to over several years to, hopefully, come up to snuff.

You going to go see that AVRO in Calgary?
 
Mc's efforts do seem to be paying off somewhat with a softening of China's trade stance and possibly India's. Don't think the western farmers are unhappy with selling grain to CN of the Maritines selling some lobster. Small incremental stuff but positions are changing and they don't change overnight.
No doubt the spending will come up as there are many projects under consideration.
Some complained about our deteriorating military. neglected for a long time. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost it'll take a few dollars to over several years to, hopefully, come up to snuff.

You going to go see that AVRO in Calgary?
The spending part they have nailed ....... admittedly a long read but for those interested...
Since the Liberals were
elected in October 2015, Canada’s federal debt has roughly doubled in nominal terms, rising from about $615–616 billion in 2015 to around $1.23–1.24 trillion by 2024. A larger increase than all previous Canadian Governments combined right back to Confederation.....
Federal debt at Carney’s start (effectively 2024‑25): roughly $1.35–1.40 trillion.
Federal debt in 2025–26 (latest estimates): roughly $1.42–1.45 trillion, depending on the source and whether you use net or gross debt.
That implies an increase of about $70–100 billion in nominal federal debt since Carney became PM, roughly 5–7% on top of an already‑high base. This is of course in excess of spending from their sources of revenue from taxation for example.
And of course don't forget they have now come up with a new accounting method. The old grifter logic....

The Canadian federal government has introduced a “Capital Budgeting Framework” that splits spending into two high‑level categories:
Operational (day‑to‑day) spending, and
Capital investment (or “investment”) spending.
This doesn’t replace the old Public Accounts format; it adds a parallel lens on how spending is presented in the budget and related documents.
What counts as “operational” spending
Under the new framework, operational spending is essentially what the government spends on running government and paying people, including:
Salaries, benefits, and administration costs.
Transfers to persons (e.g., Old Age Security, GIS, benefits‑type programs).
Transfers to provinces and territories for health, social, and related programs.
These are treated as current‑use expenses, not as investments, and are intended to be constrained by a future “balanced operating budget” target (Carney’s government has signaled a goal of balancing the operating budget by about 2028–29).
What counts as “capital investment” spending
Capital investment is defined broadly as any government expense or tax expenditure that contributes to capital formation, whether the asset sits on the federal books or on those of a private firm, Indigenous community, or another level of government.
How the government reports it now
In practice, the government now:
Maintains the traditional Public Accounts (still compliant with Canadian public‑sector accounting standards), so you can still see the full deficit and debt picture.
Adds a new capital‑investment lens in the federal budget: a separate table or section showing how much is classified as capital investment versus operational spending, even though the budget still shows a single overall deficit number.
Uses this split rhetorically to argue that operating spending is “under control” while borrowing is being used mainly for long‑term investments (which are presented as pay‑for‑themselves over time).

Criticisms and caveats
Watchdogs and economists have pointed out that the definition of “capital investment” is unusually broad—it includes some items that do not appear as capital assets on the government’s balance sheet, which can blur the line between true investment and ordinary spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) and think‑tanks argue this risks reducing transparency, because the same dollar of debt can be framed as “investing in the future” instead of “current‑use spending.”
 
Last edited:
In contrast....
The last Canadian federal government to consistently balance the budget was Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, which ran balanced budgets (or small surpluses) between roughly 2005–06 and 2007–08.
Under the Harper Conservatives, the federal budget was in balance or surplus for those years, after the large deficits of the 1990s and early‑2000s.
After the 2008–09 global financial crisis, Ottawa ran large deficits again, and no federal government has posted a multi‑year streak of balanced budgets since then.
Recent context
The Trudeau government (2015–2024) ran nine consecutive deficits, including very large ones post‑2020, and never achieved a balanced budget.
The Carney government’s 2025–26 budget projects one of the largest deficits in Canadian history outside the pandemic, so it is not yet anywhere near a balanced‑budget period.
And who was in power in Ottawa in the 90's and early 2000's ?
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Canada's federal power in Ottawa was primarily held by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of the Liberal Party. He served from November 1993 to December 2003, leading the Liberals to majority victories in the 1993, 1997, and 2000 federal elections.
Starting to see a pattern?
 
In contrast....
The last Canadian federal government to consistently balance the budget was Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, which ran balanced budgets (or small surpluses) between roughly 2005–06 and 2007–08.
Under the Harper Conservatives, the federal budget was in balance or surplus for those years, after the large deficits of the 1990s and early‑2000s.
After the 2008–09 global financial crisis, Ottawa ran large deficits again, and no federal government has posted a multi‑year streak of balanced budgets since then.
Recent context
The Trudeau government (2015–2024) ran nine consecutive deficits, including very large ones post‑2020, and never achieved a balanced budget.
The Carney government’s 2025–26 budget projects one of the largest deficits in Canadian history outside the pandemic, so it is not yet anywhere near a balanced‑budget period.
And who was in power in Ottawa in the 90's and early 2000's ?
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Canada's federal power in Ottawa was primarily held by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of the Liberal Party. He served from November 1993 to December 2003, leading the Liberals to majority victories in the 1993, 1997, and 2000 federal elections.
Starting to see a pattern?
You could always look at my post #217 on this thread
BM beat everyone. Plus a few brown envelopes
 
Mc's efforts do seem to be paying off somewhat with a softening of China's trade stance and possibly India's. Don't think the western farmers are unhappy with selling grain to CN of the Maritines selling some lobster. Small incremental stuff but positions are changing and they don't change overnight.
No doubt the spending will come up as there are many projects under consideration.
Some complained about our deteriorating military. neglected for a long time. Now that the chickens are coming home to roost it'll take a few dollars to over several years to, hopefully, come up to snuff.

You going to go see that AVRO in Calgary?
I'll wait and see if they bring it to our next air show.
 
Sad news indeed... We have all seen in the recent past what a majority government is capable of.
Woohooo.... we have a majority and now we can do anything we phucking want... Sound familiar.... That and floor crossing is nothing to be proud of.... Saying FU to your constituents who voted for you because you weren't a Liberal.... Should be a rule and should be a byelection to give those constituents a choice. JMO
 
Sad news indeed... We have all seen in the recent past what a majority government is capable of.
Woohooo.... we have a majority and now we can do anything we phucking want... Sound familiar.... That and floor crossing is nothing to be proud of.... Saying FU to your constituents who voted for you because you weren't a Liberal.... Should be a rule and should be a byelection to give those constituents a choice. JMO
Buying votes is illegal. Apparently buying MP'S is suddenly acceptable. If anyone would like I would be happy to pull up the numbers relating to government multimillion projects announced in the floor crossing MP's ridings both just beforeand after the fact. . Not to mention the expensive orange juice in the $1,000 dollar a night hotels the new recruits are staying in on their quid pro quo junkets with the PM shortly after turning tail . Now , I will say if any of them were to go over to the other side after a by-election, then fair enough.
 
Buying votes is illegal. Apparently buying MP'S is suddenly acceptable. If anyone would like I would be happy to pull up the numbers relating to government multimillion projects announced in the floor crossing MP's ridings both just beforeand after the fact. . Not to mention the expensive orange juice in the $1,000 dollar a night hotels the new recruits are staying in on their quid pro quo junkets with the PM shortly after turning tail . Now , I will say if any of them were to go over to the other side after a by-election, then fair enough.
I think PP is finding himself in a position somewhat similar to JT near his end. unbeloved by even those in their own party.
Maybe, just maybe, PP needs to put his glasses back on and read the writing on the wall.
The Libs were lucky to have MC step in to replace JT when JT put his glasses on.
Do the PC's have a better horse?
 
You are such a card carrying Conservative so someone has to take the other side! ;)
Actually that woman who crossed over supports everything I loathe about some people. She might as well be MAGA. She is closer than PP to it.
 
Buying votes is illegal. Apparently buying MP'S is suddenly acceptable. If anyone would like I would be happy to pull up the numbers relating to government multimillion projects announced in the floor crossing MP's ridings both just beforeand after the fact. . Not to mention the expensive orange juice in the $1,000 dollar a night hotels the new recruits are staying in on their quid pro quo junkets with the PM shortly after turning tail . Now , I will say if any of them were to go over to the other side after a by-election, then fair enough.

You are such a card carrying Conservative so someone has to take the other side! ;)
Actually that woman who crossed over supports everything I loathe about some people. She might as well be MAGA. She is closer than PP to it.
There is one single reason MP's cross the floor. Greed.
 
MP's it turns out are somewhat expensive acquisitions. Now to be fair some probably would have been " promised " anyway but for an area of only
I think PP is finding himself in a position somewhat similar to JT near his end. unbeloved by even those in their own party.
Maybe, just maybe, PP needs to put his glasses back on and read the writing on the wall.
The Libs were lucky to have MC step in to replace JT when JT put his glasses on.
Do the PC's have a better horse?
Looking more and more like they will have a while before we go to the polls again but they do have to find someone, shall we say , a bit less abrasive. Perhaps a female this time . Seems it was females and in particular older females who didn't vote for him last time .
 
You are such a card carrying Conservative so someone has to take the other side! ;)
Actually that woman who crossed over supports everything I loathe about some people. She might as well be MAGA. She is closer than PP to it.
Apparently as recently as a week ago she was ripping the Liberals a new one . Not that MC cares apparently as he is now a by-election away from TOTAL power ,lol. As for being card carrying, I can neither confirm nor deny these allegations....
 
3 things. I don't normally engage in online political debate but here goes it.

First off, this is UNDEMOCRATIC

Secondly, quit calling these guys "Liberals". There isn't a Liberal bone in any of their bodies. Look up "Eco Marxism" for their true definition. And if you're a true "liberal" you probably should be supporting the Conservative Party of Canada. But ya, I know, clear as mud right?.

Thirdly, and this will cause major anxiety for most of you, so much for Trump being a threat to our democracy.

Good day Gentlemen.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top