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

Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

The politician who lied about owning a car, suggested people bike more, and got caught speeding. Funny.


Sounds about as useful as the minister of middle class. Hopefully he gets an elbows up tattoo.

Carney must see a lot in her, especially since he didn't even know her name a month ago. Going to be funny watching her fuck off "nature" and try to make everything about guns. Might also be awkward for her considering "gun owners in Canada contribute significantly to nature conservation through various means, including financial contributions and volunteer efforts. Hunting and sport shooting activities generate substantial revenue that supports environmental programs and wildlife conservation initiatives. Gun owners also actively participate in conservation efforts, acting as eyes and ears for conservation officers by reporting poachers and wildlife law violations, according to the Canadian Shooting Sports Association."
I think a lot will depend on what the scope or mandate for S of S for nature entails (did we have one previously?) The majority of game and fish legislation is provincial. Maybe he needed to balance regional representation.
 
Like his politics or not, Jean Chretien is a fucking gem lol. On CBC he just fielded a question in French and essentially said that there's some people who are pissed the fuck off about not getting cabinet haha. Too old to care about swearing.

This man keeps finding ways to get himself into Canadian heritage moments.
Well, a proof is a proof.
 
I'd have to say that I think I'd laugh if I saw Pierre or Mark try and throw a punch.
justin-trudeau-2701077_medium.jpg
 
Former housing minister: not that I'm bitter ....
... with this from the post:
View attachment 93280
Post also archived here.
Just had a long talk last night at my daughters League 1 soccer game about the housing industry in Ontario in particular. The guy is completely connected in the industry, at the provincial home builders association level. Said that by the time we start building homes in the numbers that we need them right now that the entire problem will be gone away and that we'll most likely be left with a massive surplus of houses - and prices might massively drop and as a result wipe out people's retire plans who planned on selling their home for a profit, downsize somewhere else and use the difference to fund their retirement....

Says that we are not looking in the right areas for the problems, says that the money laundering through real estate is a massive problem and should be dealt with quickly.
Says that allowing immigrants (China) to bring in illegally more money than they are legally allowed to take out of their country while immigrating is another problem that pushes up the housing costs.
The banking sector is yet another problem because of the way they structure their building loans - for example - Canada is the ONLY place in the world that forces a developer to have virtually ALL of the units in a condo sold BEFORE the bank will release the loans to the builder to start to build.
The builders themselves are yet again another major issue because they are so fragmented and the way they have structured their business models - for example - Company A is set up to buy and hold the vacant farm land years and years down the road. Then Company A sells the land to Company B, both of which are in turn owned by Company Z, for say a 12 point gain. Company B is the set up for the initial development and it in turns sells pieces of land to Companies C, D and E (all in turn owned by Company Z) for another 12 point gain (meaning a min 12% profit). Companies C, D and E then in turn all start selling the land to individuals to have their houses built. Those individuals in turns have to 'choose' from a select number of home builders all of whom are numbered accounts in turn owned by Company Z and they in turn are all looking for a min 12% profit per house.
Unlike that US, there are NO 'national' homebuilding companies, they are virtually ALL regional players with a handful of provincial players (think Mattamy) and NONE of them are publicly listed companies trading on the stock market which would grant them access to more capital/liquidity to allow them to build larger developments more quickly. They are all 'Mom and Pop' companies that tend to be very risk adverse and look to maximize their profits well before they actually put a single shovel in the ground.
 
"Build on all that we accomplished"
If there's one thing he accomplished, it's the HAF has been a big success in some jurisdictions. It was smart to link the funding to zoning reforms, now we can get back to building traditional city development that are more sustainable financially without the prohibitive zoning.
 
Our investments need to be targeted at satisfying market demand, not providing unwanted supply.
What is "unwanted supply"?

Say's Law. It's not really a "law"; not all of the original claims and ideas hold up. But one take-away is the idea that almost anything put out to market at a price people will pay (in effect, exchange for their own production) can become "demanded" - even rubber ducks and over-expensive-not-particularly-tasty coffee and tea variations.

A key is substitution, in this case of oil and gas products for uses that displace other products. For example, if natural gas is cleaner-burning and economically competitive with coal, it stands a good chance of replacing coal. Observable and observed. A common counter-argument is that the "era of fossil fuels is over". Empirically, that's mostly wishful thinking - climate zealots assert it in the hopes that their naysaying will eternally stall projects.
 
What is "unwanted supply"?

Say's Law. It's not really a "law"; not all of the original claims and ideas hold up. But one take-away is the idea that almost anything put out to market at a price people will pay (in effect, exchange for their own production) can become "demanded" - even rubber ducks and over-expensive-not-particularly-tasty coffee and tea variations.
Key words "can" and "at a price people will pay". It's a commodities market, and we're already seeing (via Transmountain) that demand for our product at our price is not limitless.

Spending billions to Dump supply into a specific subsection of a rather inelastic supply chain, in the face of a price fixing/influencing cartel needs more justification than an economic theory that is "not a really a law; not all of the original claims and ideas hold up"
 
Last edited:
Key words "can" and "at a price people will pay". It's a commodities market, and we're already seeing (via Transmountain) that demand for our product at our price is not limitless.

Spending billions to Dump supply into a specific subsection of a rather inelastic supply chain, in the face of price fixing/influencing cartel needs more justification than an economic theory is "not a really a law; not all of the original claims and ideas hold up"
Given the politics, I'm confident some of the demand problem is arbitrary and unnecessary. It's not the only factor. Imagine the US one day became trade-hostile, or imagine other suppliers of oil to eastern Canada one day became trade-hostile. It's not only about oil - BC from time-to-time has to import power from the US, including recent years and probably this year.

Just how bad would prolonged energy shortages be if exploited as a political tool by some arrogant foreign leader? Does the risk justify the cost of building overcapacity? If so, could we achieve that without resorting to public investment or subsidy? How much of the cost of major infrastructure is basically litigation and time delays imposed by administrative and regulatory processes?

Status quo right now favours obstructionists and pie-in-the-sky eco-dreamers. How has that been working out around the world?
 
Given the politics, I'm confident some of the demand problem is arbitrary and unnecessary.
Of course. No one can outguess the market- except Brad of Army.ca.
Imagine the US one day became trade-hostile, or imagine other suppliers of oil to eastern Canada one day became trade-hostile. It's not only about oil - BC from time-to-time has to import power from the US, including recent years and probably this year.
Imagine my initial post explicitly noting replacing our remaining imports with domestic as one of the safely viable avenues to pursue.
 
Of course. No one can outguess the market- except Brad of Army.ca.

Imagine my initial post explicitly noting replacing our remaining imports with domestic as one of the safely viable avenues to pursue.
The thing I raised about your OP was "unwanted supply". The only thing I'm "outguessing" is the certain and unnecessary cost of interference from politicians and activists and assorted beak-wetters.
 
OK, then ....

Meanwhile, SOMEONE's not zackly staying in their lane ...
🍿
 
Of course. No one can outguess the market- except Brad of Army.ca.

Imagine my initial post explicitly noting replacing our remaining imports with domestic as one of the safely viable avenues to pursue.

My problem with the domestic replacement argument is that Canada then gains a monopoly on the supply and controls the price. This was known as the National Energy Policy.

I want a leaky system. One that allows many ports to sell what they can for whatever they can.

I want Ontario, Manitoba and BC to make money off of AB/SK oil in the same way Anacortes and New Orleans do today.
 
Back
Top