Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[CBH99]

Smart.

I imagine the backlash would be worse if he said it was over and then more did cross over.

Granted, smart as far as damage control, not smart in the sense that he doesn't seem to address the driving issues behind the defections.

Fair comment.

What would you say are the actual issues driving the defections?


(Forgive me if these have already been clearly spelled out somewhere)

 

[Altair]

Fair comment.

What would you say are the actual issues driving the defections?


(Forgive me if these have already been clearly spelled out somewhere)

From what I've been able to gather, it's the playing games in parliament as opposed to working with the LPC on areas of shared interests.

Case in point.

CPC held up the committee on the removal of the carbon tax.

CPC trying to sow division in LPC ranks over the MOU with Alberta as opposed to wanting to work to get it moving as fast as possible.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Where’s the foreign lobbyists’ registry?​

The previous Justin Trudeau government claimed to have been 'actively considering' one since February 2021

I seen this interesting post on Reddit about this. Notice anything?



These are all of the MPs who abstained from the vote on "Political interference, violence, or intimidation on Canadian soil" (which was otherwise unanimous):

Chris d'Entremont	Conservative	West Nova	Liberal MP; Crossed floor to Liberals
Bobby Morrissey	Liberal	Egmont	Liberal MP
Chandra Arya	Liberal	Nepean	Booted from 2025 candidacy to make room for Carney
Kirsty Duncan	Liberal	Etobicoke North	Was on long-term medical leave at the time; Did not run for re-election
Paul Chiang	Liberal	Markham—Unionville	Resigned in disgrace after urging supporters to kidnap rival and deliver him to the CCP
Rachel Bendayan	Liberal	Outremont	Liberal MP; Parliamentary Secretary to Carney
Richard Cannings	New Democratic	South Okanagan—West Kootenay	Did not run for re-election

 

[Jarnhamar]

Shocking news from the Liberal camp.
(just kidding)

Liberals concealed deal with alleged 'raging antisemite' Laith Marouf, Conservative MPs say​

The Liberal government concealed a deal with alleged “raging antisemite” Laith Marouf, two Conservative MPs say after they learned about it through a written inquiry.

Marouf received $122,661 as part of a Canadian Heritage program to deliver anti-racism lectures. According to Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC), where Marouf was a senior consultant who led seminars, three consultative events by the centre took place in Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax in 2022.

“While receiving this significant amount from taxpayers, Marouf published vile antisemitic statements, including calling Jewish people ‘loud-mouthed bags of human feces,’ and even fantasized about shooting Jewish people,” said Ontario MP Melissa Lantsman and Alberta MP Rachael Thomas in a joint statement. The alleged “vile antisemitic statements” were reportedly published on Marouf’s X account. Although his X account was private, the Canadian Press reported, screenshots of the posts were shared online in August 2022. They were not independently verified but showed Marouf’s name and photo.

 

[CBH99]

Oh my goodness gracious lol

It's like Carney wrote the article himself (or had some staffers do it, and he read it over to ensure his liking) - then sent it to CTV News via private email where it was then read over again & then put online for the masses...

(Believe me, $325M annually get's you some PRETTY good perks!)

...

I'm not saying that's the case here - calm down Carney lovers, I post in peace... backing away slowly

Carney’s first year as prime minister underscores the contrast with Trudeau

Canadians started the year with Justin Trudeau as prime minister, a man who wore his emotions on his sleeve — who teared up when he announced his resignation in early January, triggering a tumultuous year in politics.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Is that the right link? Because it sheds no light on your statements...

 

[Kirkhill]

The benefits of immigration to the receiving society is not immediately apparent, even in Denmark

Internationals have higher education but also higher unemployment, and in the Copenhagen area they make up a quarter of the population - The Copenhagen Post

Internationals will not replace Danes by the end of the century. Their fertility rate is in fact lower than that of Danes. They are, on average, better educated but also have higher unemployment. At the same time, the people with the highest incomes in Denmark are not Danish but Indian. And...

cphpost.dk

Coincidentally, in Canada, the Liberals have managed to make Canada less attractive

Canada reports biggest population decline on record

Drop marks the country’s first population decrease outside the pandemic, as Ottawa moves to curb immigration

www.theglobeandmail.com

....

This will hit the Universities hardest - and they have been some of the Liberals strongest supporters. And home to many Guilbeault supporters as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Trump's list of undesirable countries

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Further Restricts and Limits the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the Security of the United States

STRENGTHENING NATIONAL SECURITY THROUGH COMMON SENSE RESTRICTIONS BASED ON DATA: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Proclamation expanding and

www.whitehouse.gov

The Proclamation continues the full restrictions and entry limitations of nationals from the original 12 high-risk countries established under Proclamation 10949: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

It adds full restrictions and entry limitations on 5 additional countries based on recent analysis: Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, South Sudan, and Syria.
It also adds full restrictions and entry limitations on individuals holding Palestinian-Authority-issued travel documents.

It imposes full restrictions and entry limitations on 2 countries that were previously subject to partial restrictions: Laos and Sierra Leone.

The Proclamation continues partial restrictions of nationals from 4 of the 7 original high-risk countries: Burundi, Cuba, Togo, and Venezuela.

Because Turkmenistan has engaged productively with the United States and demonstrated significant progress since the previous Proclamation, this new Proclamation lifts the ban on its nonimmigrant visas, while maintaining the suspension of entry for Turkmen nationals as immigrants.

It adds partial restrictions and entry limitations on 15 additional countries: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Tonga, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Shocking news from the Liberal camp.
(just kidding)

Liberals concealed deal with alleged 'raging antisemite' Laith Marouf, Conservative MPs say​

How exactly do you think government operations work? The original grant would have been approved by some lower level staff, then paused after someone sent a copy of the private tweets to the Minister, the department paused the remaining grants. If CMAC had fulfilled their end of the grant, there is no actual cause to get them to repay anything under the contract they got the grant with.

This wasn't a Liberal party issue, it was an organization that got a grant having an apparent POS working for them. It's not like it was a grant from an MPs office or anything, it was a government program.

Making this a political issue is just cheap politics , and is the kind of unserious shit that is making people think these clowns run out of ideas once they get past a 3 work slogan..

 

[Jarnhamar]

How exactly do you think government operations work? The original grant would have been approved by some lower level staff, then paused after someone sent a copy of the private tweets to the Minister, the department paused the remaining grants. If CMAC had fulfilled their end of the grant, there is no actual cause to get them to repay anything under the contract they got the grant with.

This wasn't a Liberal party issue, it was an organization that got a grant having an apparent POS working for them. It's not like it was a grant from an MPs office or anything, it was a government program.

Making this a political issue is just cheap politics , and is the kind of unserious shit that is making people think these clowns run out of ideas once they get past a 3 work slogan..

This is exactly why it is a political issue. Public funds require transparent decision making, proper vetting, and honest disclosure at every level of the process.

Whether the grant was approved by a junior staff dude or not is irrelevant to the core problem here. Taxpayer money was awarded without adequate due diligence (again), and action only occurred after public exposure(again).
That indicates a failure of internal controls not just a bad employee. We see it with $100k grants and with picking the next human rights big wig.

Accountability in government programs does not should not end at “the contract allowed it.” If an organization receiving public funds employs individuals whose conduct directly contradicts the program’s mandate, the public is entitled to expect transparency, proactive oversight, and clear consequences. The LPC made some kind of deal with him, for all we know he had to pay back $1.00

 

[Navy_Pete]

This is exactly why it is a political issue. Public funds require transparent decision making, proper vetting, and honest disclosure at every level of the process.

Whether the grant was approved by a junior staff dude or not is irrelevant to the core problem here. Taxpayer money was awarded without adequate due diligence (again), and action only occurred after public exposure(again).
That indicates a failure of internal controls not just a bad employee. We see it with $100k grants and with picking the next human rights big wig.

Accountability in government programs does not should not end at “the contract allowed it.” If an organization receiving public funds employs individuals whose conduct directly contradicts the program’s mandate, the public is entitled to expect transparency, proactive oversight, and clear consequences. The LPC made some kind of deal with him, for all we know he had to pay back $1.00

At what point did the LPC get involved exactly? This happened under a Liberal MP, but I'm not sure what you think would happen differently if it was a CPC minister.

Companies put in proposals, you review the proposals, and go from there. Do you expect staffers to ask for all their social media handles for all employees and do deep background? That's an insane waste of resources, especially for something that is a 0.02% portion of the departments $500M budget for 2021.

The company where he worked got grant money to deliver seminars in 2020; they delivered 3 in 2021, got paid for it, then the DM got a report in 2022, which is when the last remaining $10k of grant money got stopped. It sounds like they had already finished the grant work, and that was contingency or they just kept it under the budget, but thinking they need to repay it is wild if they delivered what they said they were going to, and not how contracts work.

We can't actually blacklist suppliers who repeatedly bid and send in non-conforming parts hoping to not get that picked up before they get paid for the delivery, and that's much bigger numbers than that. That's also not a LPC thing, and absolutely happened under Harper, and I'm sure Chretien and other going back decades. The GoC spends hundreds of billions every year, sometimes shit happens.

How does PP spend $8.8M last year, with most of it being staff cost without accountability, and exceeding both Trudeau and Singh combined? this whole grant is a rounding error on that value, and no one even got seminars out of that.

 

[dapaterson]

Every layer of transparency and disclosure increases layers of bureaucracy. The challenge is finding balance. Who in the CAF and who in the public service can we trust?

I know a unit CO who had to waste time answering oversight about an evil Sgt who spent $9.81 on batteries without multiple quotes.

 

[Jarnhamar]

At what point did the LPC get involved exactly?

The Liberals became involved at the point where the program design, funding authority, and ministerial accountability sat with a Liberal government and a Liberal minister.

This happened under a Liberal MP, but I'm not sure what you think would happen differently if it was a CPC minister.

It wouldn't make a difference if it happened under a CPC minister.

Companies put in proposals, you review the proposals, and go from there. Do you expect staffers to ask for all their social media handles for all employees and do deep background? That's an insane waste of resources, especially for something that is a 0.02% portion of the departments $500M budget for 2021.

Basic vetting ensures taxpayer money isn’t given to organizations with serious conflicts or risks. The party has a sordid history of half-ass vetting with shitty results. Just like we seen with Birju Dattani.

You're also skipping over the center piece of the story; the Liberals concealing their deal with him.

The company...

Public funds were disbursed without proper oversight or accountability, and action only happened after the problem became public. Transparency and vetting shouldn't be partisan. It's been 10 years of the same behavior and same excuses.

this whole grant is a rounding error on that value,

Wasted money which we don't know the fate of. That's not transparency.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Michael Ma says he was ‘truly a Conservative’ the night before he crossed the floor to the Liberals​

“I have now better access to ministers and the prime minister to deliver those voices on behalf of Markham-Unionville,” Ma said. “I think this is a better approach than, you know, creating very negative views and not finding solutions.”

He said he’s hearing from the community that they want the country “to be united and to be strong.”

Meanwhile

Some 37,000 people have signed a petition calling for Ma to resign, saying more than 27,000 people voted for him as a Conservative and he never consulted the community before making the move.

 

[HavokFour]

Michael Ma says he was ‘truly a Conservative’ the night before he crossed the floor to the Liberals​

Meanwhile

Anyone on the planet, mechanical or biological can sign a change.org petition. I'd be surprised if even 20% of the signatures are even from the riding.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Anyone on the planet, mechanical or biological can sign a change.org petition. I'd be surprised if even 20% of the signatures are even from the riding.

Heck I even signed (twice if I recall correctly, lol), the petition to repeal the Brexit vote results.....

 

[Jarnhamar]

Anyone on the planet, mechanical or biological can sign a change.org petition. I'd be surprised if even 20% of the signatures are even from the riding.

Of course.

He probably got visited by 3 ghosts the night of the Conservative Christmas party.

 

[GR66]

Michael Ma says he was ‘truly a Conservative’ the night before he crossed the floor to the Liberals​

I guess you can be a "conservative" without being a "Conservative"

 

[Navy_Pete]

The Liberals became involved at the point where the program design, funding authority, and ministerial accountability sat with a Liberal government and a Liberal minister.


It wouldn't make a difference if it happened under a CPC minister.


Basic vetting ensures taxpayer money isn’t given to organizations with serious conflicts or risks. The party has a sordid history of half-ass vetting with shitty results. Just like we seen with Birju Dattani.

You're also skipping over the center piece of the story; the Liberals concealing their deal with him.


Public funds were disbursed without proper oversight or accountability, and action only happened after the problem became public. Transparency and vetting shouldn't be partisan. It's been 10 years of the same behavior and same excuses.


Wasted money which we don't know the fate of. That's not transparency.

Basic vetting wouldn't have necessarily caught this, it was also years ago, and only being brought up again as a distraction. There was the required oversight and accountability for disbursing the funds, and there is no actual suggestion that CMAC didn't deliver what they were contracted to do.

There also wasn't a Liberal deal with anyone; the GoC terminated the contract between Canada and CMAC.

There is no grounds for clawback unless they submitted false invoices.

Just because someone is a shitty person doesn't mean we can not adhere to contracts. We can stop doing business with someone, but still need to pay them for services rendered.

Not sure if you've ever done a contract before, but at most, this was a staff level mistake, and your expectations for what vetting we can do and what actually even makes sense is right out to lunch.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Basic vetting wouldn't have necessarily caught this

The testimony and records make clear that vetting did occur on the organization, but not on the individuals connected to it. That this was acknowledged as a failure in the process. Officials admitted there was no specific vetting of Marouf’s public statements when the application was evaluated. That's why the issue wasn’t caught until after funding was announced.

The Liberal vetting apparatus sucks at it's job at best, and ignores red flags at worse.

There also wasn't a Liberal deal with anyone; the GoC terminated the contract between Canada and CMAC.

Agreed.

There is no grounds for clawback unless they submitted false invoices.

Disagree. Government records show that Canada is actively seeking repayment of funds already paid as a result of contract termination, without reference to false invoices. This is being pursued through legal mechanisms and collection efforts because the contract was rescinded.

Just because someone is a shitty person doesn't mean we can not adhere to contracts. We can stop doing business with someone, but still need to pay them for services rendered.

Disagree again. The government has taken steps to terminate the contribution agreement and seek repayment of funds as a result of the breach in terms and concerns about the conduct that gave rise to funding scrutiny. That does represent clawback efforts even in the absence of alleged false invoicing.

Not sure if you've ever done a contract before, but at most, this was a staff level mistake, and your expectations for what vetting we can do and what actually even makes sense is right out to lunch.

Disagree again, again. You're trying to defend the government when they themselves are admitting fault. Government officials themselves described the situation as a systemic vetting failure, and not just a simple staff oversight. They acknowledged that the existing review process went through the cracks and were criticized for inadequate due diligence. If I'm right out to lunch (possible! I've never dealt with contracts) then I'm not alone.