• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2025 Federal Election - 28 Apr 25

MilEME09 said:
Oh look i am not the only one sounding the alarm on his campaign

globalnews.ca

‘The wheels are off’: Senior Conservatives think the Poilievre campaign needs a reset - National | Globalnews.ca

Conservative sources tell Global News that Poilievre’s team is isolated and refusing to bring in outside voices as poll numbers continue to slump.
globalnews.ca globalnews.ca
Click to expand...

Starting to sound like an air raid siren.

More than half a dozen Conservatives, who spoke to CBC News on the condition they not be named for fear of retribution, describe a campaign that is "highly disorganized" and "a mess." The sources include individuals both inside and outside the campaign.

Several of the sources allege that too many decisions have to go through Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's chief strategist, Jenni Byrne.
Click to expand...

Alt: https://archive.ph/dfC4u
 
The old Auto Pact of 1965 simply stated that for every car sold in Canada one must be produced.
In 2024 we produced 1.3 million cars and in turn we bought 1.9 million cars.
A solution, not saying that this is THE solution, would be to return back to this. The Germans and South Koreans would be the ones must affected by this approach as neither of them have any auto assembly plants located in Canada.
Honda/Toyota/Stellantis/GM/Ford would all benefit from this approach.
It would not be perfect but it could be the framework to work towards a solution that Canada suffers the least amount of pain from.
brihard said:
Except that Trump has explicitly said he wants to bring auto manufacturing within the U.S. and specifically intends to use tariffs to do so. Because of the integrated supply chain it will take some time to certify the portion of value based on origin of specific components, but it also explicitly says that once that mechanism is in place there will be a tariff on the portion of the vehicle value that reflects Canadian and Mexican components. That facebook poster seems to be pretending that just because the mechanism isn’t in place yet, it voids the explicitly communicated plans and intent.

While Trump’s record of following through on economic threats isn’t super consistent, he’s followed through on enough - including steel and aluminum tariffs - that not taking it seriously and responding accordingly is stupid.

No tariffs on US origin parts is helpful for the assemblers, but does nothing for Canadian parts manufacturers. There are far more Canadians working in parts than in final assembly. This will also have the future effect of reducing or eliminating the addition of new assembly lines or parts production in Canada. Until now, we could predict that as new car lines are established, some portion of the production would be established in Canada. Going forward we can no longer count on that. Lines may be closed rather than re-tooled.

So yes, there is an element of crisis to this. That video argues the equivalent of standing the middle of the highway and pretending there’s no danger because you haven’t actually been struck yet.
Click to expand...
 
Czech_pivo said:
The old Auto Pact of 1965 simply stated that for every car sold in Canada one must be produced.
In 2024 we produced 1.3 million cars and in turn we bought 1.9 million cars.
A solution, not saying that this is THE solution, would be to return back to this. The Germans and South Koreans would be the ones must affected by this approach as neither of them have any auto assembly plants located in Canada.
Honda/Toyota/Stellantis/GM/Ford would all benefit from this approach.
It would not be perfect but it could be the framework to work towards a solution that Canada suffers the least amount of pain from.
Click to expand...
Our problem isn't that we aren't buying our "fair share" of cars; our problem is that we are buying only a small fraction of our total production. (For one year, apparently we bought 12% of what I assume was "final assembly" of cars in Canada.) That means that a Canada-US rupture without an immediate shift in ability to export cars to other markets will either require Canadians to buy from the limited selection of what is produced in Canada, or auto manufacturers to close most production down.
 
brihard said:
The LPC have dropped a Calgary candidate because he failed to disclose a domestic assault charge that was laid and stayed back in 2005.

Interesting tidbit from the article, parties have until the 22nd day of the campaign (April 13th) to replace a candidate.

Click to expand...
Well I have to give credit where credit is due, and on the surface this seems like a reasonable move from the LPC.

Seems inconsistently enforced, re Evan Solomons


It seems like his crime, in the eyes of the LPC, was not disclosing the information. Not the circumstances surrounding the charge.

...

Personally, I can understand the candidate not disclosing that information. And I can understand the LPC's position on it.

If someone doesn't have a criminal record, and the lone charge they were charged with was stayed, and that was 20 years ago...I actually don't blame him for not including/disclosing that to the LPC.

I'm far more concerned with what that individual has been up to for the last 5-10 years, rather than an anomaly that happened 20 years ago.

(That charge was stayed in pretty record time I should point out. In docket court, which tends to happen once a month in most jurisdictions, it pretty much means his charge was stayed before his 2nd court appearance - which means the basis for him being charged was so fundamentally flawed that his legal counsel just had to pick up the phone and make a call, or the Crown itself stayed the charge on their own initiative because of problems of some sort.)

So as we all know, whether someone is found guilty or not-guilty in a court of law certainly doesn't mean someone is actually guilty or not-guilty of the offense. But in the eyes of the law, aka from an official/technical perspective - that person is not guilty of the offence they were charged with.

In this case, the charge was stayed & not revisited by the Crown. It also happened 20 years ago.

So from a legal perspective, I dont know if he would have been required to disclose that information anyway?

...

Personally I think the guy is a total f**kin' weirdo, and good riddance from politics and the public eye. I'm glad to see him go, and think he would have been a Calgary version of Randy Boissanault.

That being said, I just don't know the details around whether someone has to disclose a single stayed charge from 2 decades ago.

(Keeping in mind that most police agency applications ask whether people have ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted...)


(I'm sure someone far more knowledgeable on legal matters probably has a much more accurate take on the details of stuff like this. Either way, good riddance to this guy, IMO)
 
Brad Sallows said:
Our problem isn't that we aren't buying our "fair share" of cars; our problem is that we are buying only a small fraction of our total production. (For one year, apparently we bought 12% of what I assume was "final assembly" of cars in Canada.) That means that a Canada-US rupture without an immediate shift in ability to export cars to other markets will either require Canadians to buy from the limited selection of what is produced in Canada, or auto manufacturers to close most production
Click to expand...
Correct - we are buying more SUV’s and trucks than ever before and outside of CRV’s and RAV4, we don’t make the here.
They don’t have to close production, they will have to retool production - a facility makes more than 1 type of vehicle.
The Toyota facility would make Corollas, RAV4, Tacoma, Lexus, etc, etc.
The old Chrysler plant in Windsor would have to make Jeeps Cherokees as well as Pacifica and Ram trucks.
These type of facilities exist now but it will take money and time to make this happen.
 
CBH99 said:
Well I have to give credit where credit is due, and on the surface this seems like a reasonable move from the LPC.

Seems inconsistently enforced, re Evan Solomons


It seems like his crime, in the eyes of the LPC, was not disclosing the information. Not the circumstances surrounding the charge.

...

Personally, I can understand the candidate not disclosing that information. And I can understand the LPC's position on it.

If someone doesn't have a criminal record, and the lone charge they were charged with was stayed, and that was 20 years ago...I actually don't blame him for not including/disclosing that to the LPC.

I'm far more concerned with what that individual has been up to for the last 5-10 years, rather than an anomaly that happened 20 years ago.

(That charge was stayed in pretty record time I should point out. In docket court, which tends to happen once a month in most jurisdictions, it pretty much means his charge was stayed before his 2nd court appearance - which means the basis for him being charged was so fundamentally flawed that his legal counsel just had to pick up the phone and make a call, or the Crown itself stayed the charge on their own initiative because of problems of some sort.)

So as we all know, whether someone is found guilty or not-guilty in a court of law certainly doesn't mean someone is actually guilty or not-guilty of the offense. But in the eyes of the law, aka from an official/technical perspective - that person is not guilty of the offence they were charged with.

In this case, the charge was stayed & not revisited by the Crown. It also happened 20 years ago.

So from a legal perspective, I dont know if he would have been required to disclose that information anyway?

...

Personally I think the guy is a total f**kin' weirdo, and good riddance from politics and the public eye. I'm glad to see him go, and think he would have been a Calgary version of Randy Boissanault.

That being said, I just don't know the details around whether someone has to disclose a single stayed charge from 2 decades ago.

(Keeping in mind that most police agency applications ask whether people have ever been convicted of a criminal offence for which a pardon has not been granted...)


(I'm sure someone far more knowledgeable on legal matters probably has a much more accurate take on the details of stuff like this. Either way, good riddance to this guy, IMO)
Click to expand...
Parties can pretty much govern and restrict their own candidacy. He can still run for Parliament, he just can’t do it as the candidate for the Liberal Party. If they impose a sweeping disclosure requirement, that’s their call.It sounds like he was gonged for failure to disclose. For me it would raise a concern about what else a candidate has chosen not to disclose that the party didn’t catch?
 
lenaitch said:
You mean this Jennie Byrne?

View attachment 92322

Not concerning at all.
Click to expand...
She’s VERY good - surgically cut throat - at what she does, zero question. She’s a long-time true believer. The old school in me shuddered when she publicly shit on a former Team Blue party leader for wishing Anita Anand best of luck on Twitter when Anand said she was stepping down. That one tweet tells me a lot about how they play politics on Team Blue - or at least what the boss is happy to put up with. Said former CPC leader continues to faithfully defend the colours, so I guess she told HIM.
 
Well my riding boundaries have changed and I am back to my old stomping grounds lol.
 
Lumber said:
That's like if I decided to open up a scuba diving business, but set it up in Aruba because I felt that I would make more profit down there than having one in Halifax, and then people getting mad at me when Canadians come down and spend their Canadian dollars to go diving with my company thereby preventing their money from becoming Canadian tax revenue.
Click to expand...
If you opened it up in Bonaire, no one could get mad, because it’s way better diving than Aruba (which is, admittedly quite nice). 👍🏼

brihard said:
Shit, I have holdings in Brookfield through some mutual funds. Anyone with exposure to Canadian large cap equities does. Hell, I bet the CPP fund holds some meaning we literally all have some interest in it indirectly.
Click to expand...
Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (second biggest fund in Canada after CPP) also has Brookfield, so you’re in good company, brihard. 😉
 
It would appear that it wasn’t freeland's idea to freeze the bank accounts of convoy participants and supporters. Carney, trudeau's economic advisor at the time, penned an opinion piece, on 08 Feb 22. On 14 Feb, trudeau vows to freeze bank accounts. On 17 Feb, freeland initiated the freeze.


It’s time to end the sedition in Ottawa, Mark Carney writes

The Globe and Mail (Ontario Edition)8 Feb 2022MARK CARNEY OPINION Ottawa resident and former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England

Occupiers’ actions are making residents’ lives unbearable and aim to undermine democracy and the rule of law

In our capital city, many people have been terrorized for more than a week. Women fleeing abuse have been harassed. Many elderly have been too afraid to venture outside their homes for groceries. Families have been deprived of sleep for days on end by the constant barrage of 100-decibel noise. Control over the city’s downtown core, which includes the Parliamentary Precinct, was ceded by the police and taken over by what the chair of the Police Services Board describes as an “insurrection.”

Canadians can be forgiven if they thought this would never happen in Ottawa.

The goals of the leadership of the so-called Freedom Convoy were clear from the start: to remove from power the government that Canadians elected less than six months ago. Their blatant treachery was dismissed as comic, which meant many didn’t take them as seriously as they should have. Certainly not our public-safety authorities, whose negotiations facilitated the convoy’s entry into the heart of our capital and have watched as its dangerous infrastructure has been steadily reinforced – a policy of engagement that has amounted to a reality of appeasement.

On the first weekend, many Canadians who joined the demonstrations undoubtedly had peaceful objectives. Tired as we all are with unprecedented disruptions that we’ve all endured over the past two years, it’s understandable that many would want to come to Ottawa to protest. It’s a free country, and everyone should be able to express their opinions free of interference from the state, just as the press should be able to report without fear of harassment or intimidation.

But now in its second week, no one should have any doubt. This is sedition. That’s a word I never thought I’d use in Canada. It means “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.”

On Sunday, authorities began to draw the line. Declaring a state of emergency was the right thing to do.

From now on, those who are occupying the downtown of our country’s capital should be in no doubt. They are no longer simply advocating a different strategy to end COVID-19. They are not patriots. This is not about “restoring freedom” but beginning anarchy. This isn’t getting carried away at a rally. It’s not a rush of blood to the head. It’s deliberate and calculated, and because of that, they must know that from now on there will be consequences for their actions.

The police had been reluctant to enforce the most basic bylaws. But these “infractions” – the constant blaring of horns at all hours, the harassment of people, the culture of fear – have been making residents’ lives hell, will bankrupt our businesses, and, if left unchecked, would help achieve the convoy’s goal of undermining our democracy and the rule of law.

Those who are still helping to extend this occupation must be identified and punished to the full force of the law.

Drawing the line means choking off the money that financed this occupation. Again, many Canadians who were among the initial donors were likely well meaning. Perhaps they were unaware of the convoy’s stated objectives or – like many in positions of authority in Ottawa – they didn’t take them seriously. Perhaps all they wanted was a new COVID-19 policy with fewer restrictions.

But by now anyone sending money to the convoy should be in no doubt: You are funding sedition. Foreign funders of an insurrection interfered in our domestic affairs from the start. Canadian authorities should take every step within the law to identify and thoroughly punish them. The involvement of foreign governments and any officials connected to them should be identified, exposed and addressed.

I know from experience that crises don’t end by themselves. You can’t spin your way out of failure. You must recognize the scale of the challenge, devise a clear plan and then implement it methodically and deliberately. Your determination to do so can never be in doubt. Then and only then can order be restored. In this case, that means enforcing the law and following the money. Individuals must be held responsible for their lawlessness and those who financed their actions must be dissuaded from ever doing so again.

Our Constitution is based on peace, order and good government. We must live up to this founding principle in order to protect all our freedoms.
 
The Bread Guy said:
She’s VERY good - surgically cut throat - at what she does, zero question. She’s a long-time true believer. The old school in me shuddered when she publicly shit on a former Team Blue party leader for wishing Anita Anand best of luck on Twitter when Anand said she was stepping down. That one tweet tells me a lot about how they play politics on Team Blue - or at least what the boss is happy to put up with. Said former CPC leader continues to faithfully defend the colours, so I guess she told HIM.
Click to expand...
Is she good? She’s behind the Tories’ loss in 2015. I think she was the brains behind the “barbarian practices hotline”.
 
brihard said:
Except that Trump has explicitly said he wants to bring auto manufacturing within the U.S. and specifically intends to use tariffs to do so. Because of the integrated supply chain it will take some time to certify the portion of value based on origin of specific components, but it also explicitly says that once that mechanism is in place there will be a tariff on the portion of the vehicle value that reflects Canadian and Mexican components. That facebook poster seems to be pretending that just because the mechanism isn’t in place yet, it voids the explicitly communicated plans and intent.

While Trump’s record of following through on economic threats isn’t super consistent, he’s followed through on enough - including steel and aluminum tariffs - that not taking it seriously and responding accordingly is stupid.

No tariffs on US origin parts is helpful for the assemblers, but does nothing for Canadian parts manufacturers. There are far more Canadians working in parts than in final assembly. This will also have the future effect of reducing or eliminating the addition of new assembly lines or parts production in Canada. Until now, we could predict that as new car lines are established, some portion of the production would be established in Canada. Going forward we can no longer count on that. Lines may be closed rather than re-tooled.

So yes, there is an element of crisis to this. That video argues the equivalent of standing the middle of the highway and pretending there’s no danger because you haven’t actually been struck yet.
Click to expand...

Trump will be out of office before they could even lay the groundwork to move automaking out of Canada. It takes 6 -- 8 months to change an existing line for a new model. If you have to build a factory and install a new line complete, that'll take a few years, at least. Plus you need to pull the existing equipment and move it across the river. Past experience here proves that is not as simple as it sounds.

Now, I won’t say he's not serious about doing it. I'm just saying this isn’t something he can make happen on a whim. It will also cost the auto makers billions to make those moves. They'll weigh that against the cost of the tariffs. Most of the auto makers are not that flush with cash now days. Their products will also suffer huge quality control issues caused by hiring thousands of new workers not used to assembly line work. Auto makers will also try recover their lost market share but will have to increase the price of their product to do so. It'll be hard,people won’t want to pay it and Canadians will stop buying from them.
 
Last edited:
RangerRay said:
FFS…🤦‍♂️
Click to expand...

It might not be that bad. There is plenty of people in Ontario that believe it was all a scamdemic. He just needs a bunch of those in his riding. Let's not forget who his main detractors were. The Ontario liberals and the leftist media.

Speaking of left and right, look close and you'll see this is a left bias hit piece.
 
RangerRay said:
Is she good? She’s behind the Tories’ loss in 2015. I think she was the brains behind the “barbarian practices hotline”.
Click to expand...
Also helped Team Blue keep how big a lead (and got how long) before PMJT said he’d GTFO, followed by Banker Guy & POTUS47 standing to. Big credit where due there.

Now, is she advising a change of course & PP’s dragging his heels? Is she digging in and PP’s OK with it? I can’t tell, but there’s enough public grumbling by big Team Blue names that nobody’s listening to outsiders talking inward, so who knows? 🤔
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
    • Like
    • Insightful
The Decline of the Liberal Party- Swerved Into a Confederation Topic
26 27 28
Replies
558
Views
244K
Fishbone Jones
Fishbone Jones
daftandbarmy
‘Defence’ doesn’t fit the job of Canada’s military any more. Let’s create a Department of National Safety instead
2 3
Replies
46
Views
89K
foresterab
F
observor 69
Western pilot flies MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter jet
Replies
3
Views
16K
brihard
B
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Origin of Covid — Following the Clues
Replies
15
Views
42K
medicineman
medicineman
larry Strong
    • Like
"The Magnificent Seven”
Replies
1
Views
13K
CBH99
C
Back
Top