so call the provinces out on it instead of wasting time with unnecessary debate, if indeed the laws are in place to keep the bad guys in jail prior to trial.,
Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 7,578
- Points
- 1,160
That's pretty funny, was that intended as an insult?
There have been foreign workers in Canada working on a lot of the fruit farms for my whole life, and generally they were all extremely hardworking people that only took Sundays off for church, so from that perpective wish all MPs were more like TFWs.
I remember watching a NFB documentary in grade school in the 80s about tomato farmers in Ontario. Mexicans and Quebecers…
- Reaction score
- 7,578
- Points
- 1,160
Growing up in the fruit belt it was a lot of Cubans and South Americans. A lot of them came back every year as well as seasonal workers for decades and were there for the whole season.
It was pretty hard work, and they hired on summer students as well to help with the harvest, but I guess there was just a lot of the actual farming that is not able to be done by machine so there was a lot of care and tending that started in the spring, through the harvest, then into the fall when they set all the orchards up for the winter.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,412
- Points
- 1,040
The critics of the abused TFW program (goes way beyond the CPC at this point) are NOT TALKING about ag TFWs. Even Pierre makes it clear that the ag fill in TFWs have been there for a very long time.
They are criticizing the Timmys, wendys, hotels, fast food, etc where it is grossly abused. The reports coming out now on several news agencies of employer abuse in these programs is getting sickening.
- Reaction score
- 1,923
- Points
- 1,260
Back in 1964, Time magazine quoted Actor and U.S. Senator George Murphy as saying that foreign farm labor programs are necessary to California because, among other reasons:
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,412
- Points
- 1,040
Adding to the TFW boondoggle, ho many here have seen the footage pop up of Mark Carney in 2013 or so criticizing the Harper government for using TFWs (when it was significantly lower numbers?)
There is also footage that popped up of LPC party leader at the time Justin Trudeau also criticizing the Harper government for use of TFWs, however he is history and acknowledged as a piss poor PM.
There is also footage that popped up of LPC party leader at the time Justin Trudeau also criticizing the Harper government for use of TFWs, however he is history and acknowledged as a piss poor PM.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,412
- Points
- 1,040
Not relevant to the current situation.
- Reaction score
- 7,578
- Points
- 1,160
Which is fair, and I would agree with. There are also people actively searching those postings, applying then submitting complaints so see how that goes.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 40,255
- Points
- 1,160
Doublespeak from Big Brother? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you 
Although Prime Minister Mark Carney has degrees from Harvard and Oxford and experience running two central banks, his fiscal plan doesn’t appear to be taking a page out of the book of famed economists like Milton Friedman or John Maynard Keynes, but is instead adopting strategies outlined in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
On Wednesday, Carney told reporters that the upcoming fall budget will be “an austerity and investment budget at the same time,” noting that, “We need to rein in spending, we need to find efficiencies … that create the room for these big investments.” The following day, his finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, said , “We’re going to spend less so we can invest more.”
Congratulations to anyone who realizes the government can’t be both austere and embark on a massive spending spree — you haven’t yet succumbed to Liberal “ doublethink .” What Carney is really saying is that Ottawa plans to focus on different priorities, cutting some areas in order to increase spending in others.
But the Liberals don’t have any fiscal room to manoeuvre. Last year’s fall economic statement projected a $31-billion deficit in the 2026-27 fiscal year, and if past experience is any indication, it will be much higher than that.
During the last election, the Liberals promised nearly $33 billion in new spending in the coming year. And since that time, they’ve announced a slew of new expenditures, including a $9.3-billion increase in defence spending. To pay for all the new goodies, Champagne asked federal departments to find ways to cut spending by 7.5 per cent in the upcoming fiscal year.
as already said that major transfers to individuals and other levels of government — which collectively represent nearly half of program expenses — will not be touched. Military and law enforcement will also be spared from the chopping block.
Meanwhile, the fiscal outlook has significantly worsened since the government’s last economic statement. The unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of 7.1 per cent, after the economy shed 66,000 jobs in August. Many businesses throughout the country are hanging by a thread, unable to withstand the punishment of U.S. tariffs for much longer.
This will further strain the public treasury through increased employment insurance and other benefits, at the same time as Ottawa dropped many of its counter-tariffs, which means less money in government coffers. And, of course, public debt charges will only increase.
NP View: Liberal 'austerity'? Don't make us laugh
Although Prime Minister Mark Carney has degrees from Harvard and Oxford and experience running two central banks, his fiscal plan doesn’t appear to be taking a page out of the book of famed economists like Milton Friedman or John Maynard Keynes, but is instead adopting strategies outlined in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
On Wednesday, Carney told reporters that the upcoming fall budget will be “an austerity and investment budget at the same time,” noting that, “We need to rein in spending, we need to find efficiencies … that create the room for these big investments.” The following day, his finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, said , “We’re going to spend less so we can invest more.”
Congratulations to anyone who realizes the government can’t be both austere and embark on a massive spending spree — you haven’t yet succumbed to Liberal “ doublethink .” What Carney is really saying is that Ottawa plans to focus on different priorities, cutting some areas in order to increase spending in others.
But the Liberals don’t have any fiscal room to manoeuvre. Last year’s fall economic statement projected a $31-billion deficit in the 2026-27 fiscal year, and if past experience is any indication, it will be much higher than that.
During the last election, the Liberals promised nearly $33 billion in new spending in the coming year. And since that time, they’ve announced a slew of new expenditures, including a $9.3-billion increase in defence spending. To pay for all the new goodies, Champagne asked federal departments to find ways to cut spending by 7.5 per cent in the upcoming fiscal year.
as already said that major transfers to individuals and other levels of government — which collectively represent nearly half of program expenses — will not be touched. Military and law enforcement will also be spared from the chopping block.
Meanwhile, the fiscal outlook has significantly worsened since the government’s last economic statement. The unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of 7.1 per cent, after the economy shed 66,000 jobs in August. Many businesses throughout the country are hanging by a thread, unable to withstand the punishment of U.S. tariffs for much longer.
This will further strain the public treasury through increased employment insurance and other benefits, at the same time as Ottawa dropped many of its counter-tariffs, which means less money in government coffers. And, of course, public debt charges will only increase.
- Reaction score
- 1,923
- Points
- 1,260
I suspect they don't actually care, it's just a point about how sales numbers can be a bit misleading. GM sells more full-sized trucks than Ford, even thought he F-150 is the sales king.
Also Ford sucks, but that's just an opinion...
"I didn't know if you were a Ford man, or a Chevy man. It was the happiest problem I've ever faced."
King of the Hill.
- Reaction score
- 4,367
- Points
- 1,260
How do we square a circle?Doublespeak from Big Brother? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you
NP View: Liberal 'austerity'? Don't make us laugh
Although Prime Minister Mark Carney has degrees from Harvard and Oxford and experience running two central banks, his fiscal plan doesn’t appear to be taking a page out of the book of famed economists like Milton Friedman or John Maynard Keynes, but is instead adopting strategies outlined in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
On Wednesday, Carney told reporters that the upcoming fall budget will be “an austerity and investment budget at the same time,” noting that, “We need to rein in spending, we need to find efficiencies … that create the room for these big investments.” The following day, his finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, said , “We’re going to spend less so we can invest more.”
Congratulations to anyone who realizes the government can’t be both austere and embark on a massive spending spree — you haven’t yet succumbed to Liberal “ doublethink .” What Carney is really saying is that Ottawa plans to focus on different priorities, cutting some areas in order to increase spending in others.
But the Liberals don’t have any fiscal room to manoeuvre. Last year’s fall economic statement projected a $31-billion deficit in the 2026-27 fiscal year, and if past experience is any indication, it will be much higher than that.
During the last election, the Liberals promised nearly $33 billion in new spending in the coming year. And since that time, they’ve announced a slew of new expenditures, including a $9.3-billion increase in defence spending. To pay for all the new goodies, Champagne asked federal departments to find ways to cut spending by 7.5 per cent in the upcoming fiscal year.
as already said that major transfers to individuals and other levels of government — which collectively represent nearly half of program expenses — will not be touched. Military and law enforcement will also be spared from the chopping block.
Meanwhile, the fiscal outlook has significantly worsened since the government’s last economic statement. The unemployment rate hit a nine-year high of 7.1 per cent, after the economy shed 66,000 jobs in August. Many businesses throughout the country are hanging by a thread, unable to withstand the punishment of U.S. tariffs for much longer.
This will further strain the public treasury through increased employment insurance and other benefits, at the same time as Ottawa dropped many of its counter-tariffs, which means less money in government coffers. And, of course, public debt charges will only increase.
Need for substantial defense spending from here on out into the foreseeable future - need to substantially rein in federal government spending and head count well into the foreseeable future.
- Reaction score
- 6,883
- Points
- 1,260
Yeah - let's send him back to where he was born ....
- Reaction score
- 6,883
- Points
- 1,260
There's a reason Mexico has a consulate in Leamington
- Reaction score
- 10,109
- Points
- 1,160
We need a more mature, less politicalized version of DOGE. It would save billions of dollars.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,412
- Points
- 1,040
My prediction? Typical Liberals (and these guys are no different as we see now), defence spending beyond pay and benefit increases will be the first sacrificed at the altar of political expediency
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,445
- Points
- 1,040
Looking at some of these, you have to wonder just how much tax money is hemorrhaging out of Canada on things a majority would not agree with.
Imagine how that money could improve things like healthcare or defence.
- Reaction score
- 4,367
- Points
- 1,260
How do you know that those very programmes are not under review?
The examples that you've sited were all put in place under the previous Fed govt, not the current one, correct?
Maybe wait to the new Federal budget in the next 5-7 weeks and see if these still exist.
Lastly, there is a definite, strategic, long term need for Canada to maintain some sort of 'flag waving' initiative within Africa. It is the fast growing continent in terms of population growth and a leading one for economic growth. With the US throwing in the towel and giving China an almost cart blanche opportunity to dominate foreign influence in that continent, it is in our best medium to long term planning to continue to be present there. I am not necessarily agreeing with where or how previously the money/effort was being spent but I am wholeheartedly in support in a continued and hopefully growing, presence for Canada in Africa. I do not suffer from the insular, inward looking approach that many Conservatives do today.
The process already exists.
We don’t need to emulate anything happening south of us in that regard.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 40,255
- Points
- 1,160
Don't worry, looks like we've got that covered...
