Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Eaglelord17]

I’d vote for Carney’s party out here if he put forth a good candidate who would resign or sit as an independent the very moment they order him to vote in favour of silly things that the government intends on doing if they have a majority. But I would never vote for Ford as a CPC leader and would not vote CPC if he became leader.
I’ve written to Dominic Cardy twice to have him come out here and host a town hall. We need new, non crazy train options.

Ford’s success is mostly due to underwhelming competition not great skill.

Personally I dislike the guy, and I couldn’t be happier if his corrupt ass got kicked to the curb. That being said I don’t see another somewhat viable alternative and until I do, I shall not vote in the Ontario elections again.

With how bad the Ontario Liberals were when Ford got elected, the reality is a rock could have ran, gotten a majority AND done a better job.

Realistically Federally we were in basically the same situation with Trudeau vs PP. It would have been a landslide victory if Trudeau stayed on. The key difference was there was no Carney to save the Ontario Liberals.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I am private sector. I am in a sector directly effected by Trumps tariffs, to the point my industry would be dead without direct government intervention.

Liberal or Conservative isn’t changing that situation, the problem isn’t in our borders, it is in our neighbours.

If the Conservatives are delusional enough to believe that they would have somehow made a ‘good deal’ I have a bridge to sell you…

Never heard the CPC say as an official party position that they could or even would get a better deal. I did hear Carney say that he would. In fact he campaigned on it, and is still campaigning on it.
I did, however, hear the CPC say they would stop the stupid rules and policies that drive businesses out of Canada and into other countries primarily the US.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Never heard the CPC say as an official party position that they could or even would get a better deal. I did hear Carney say that he would. In fact he campaigned on it, and is still campaigning on it.
I did, however, hear the CPC say they would stop the stupid rules and policies that drive businesses out of Canada and into other countries primarily the US.

'Great deal:' Pierre Poilievre makes energy pitch to Trump

Pierre Poilievre says he could increase Canada’s exports to the U.S. and strike a “great deal” with Donald Trump. Find out more.

financialpost.com

‘Pierre Poilievre — the Conservative leader who is the front-runner to beat Trudeau’s party in the next election — says he could increase Canada’s exports to the U.S. and strike a “great deal” with Trump anyway.’

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-us-plan-1.7500060

‘His plan includes a push to renegotiate the trade deal with the U.S. as soon as possible’

Both campaigned on it. Both understand that for a agreement to be made both have to barter in good faith. Unfortunately the States isn’t, and based on how they have been acting with agreements made with other countries they aren’t reliable.

Wanting a good deal and being able to achieve it are two very different things. Time is on our side currently, I wouldn’t rush into any poor deal because there is a very good chance Trump will lose the midterms and even ignoring that, their supreme court rulings can change a lot.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Did they give away half or loan half in exchange for repayments via a share of tolls. I read different things about that… it sounds like the mafia family/private owner of the other existing bridge wants a shake down equity stake in Michigan’s part which not going to happen.

Canada funded the MI "half share" of the bridge because MI legislators would not. When Canada recovers that "loan" from tolls, the toll revenues are to be equally shared.

Irrespective of what Trump or Maroun wants, the acceptance of funding from a foreign government by an executive wanting to bypass a legislature is a wrinkle that some people want to explore. It may not seem a big deal to most people, including most people here, but the idea that executives can't bypass legislators on supply is a sensitive issue in the US. Doesn't matter whether it's airplanes or bridges.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Wanting a good deal and being able to achieve it are two very different things. Time is on our side currently, I wouldn’t rush into any poor deal because there is a very good chance Trump will lose the midterms and even ignoring that, their supreme court rulings can change a lot.

Don't pin too much hope on midterms. Democrats might win only the House. They might win House and Senate, but not with a 60-vote supermajority to overcome filibusters in the latter (a highly unlikely outcome), in which case much of their legislation won't go anywhere. If they got all that or changed the filibuster rule to simple majority, it's even more unlikely that they could override a presidential veto without Republican support. (For a party to change the filibuster rule when it doesn't occupy the WH would be insanely futile.) Expect House Democrats to do their usual - pass a large number of bills that have no hope of going anywhere, just to be able to say "Republicans are against X".

As some Democratic pundits have been warning (based on what's happened before), if the party wins the House and goes on another impotent ideological tear, they could easily throw away any hope of winning the presidency in 2028.

 

[brihard]

I’d vote for Carney’s party out here if he put forth a good candidate who would resign or sit as an independent the very moment they order him to vote in favour of silly things that the government intends on doing if they have a majority. But I would never vote for Ford as a CPC leader and would not vote CPC if he became leader.
I’ve written to Dominic Cardy twice to have him come out here and host a town hall. We need new, non crazy train options.

Out of curiosity how big was the CPC lead in your riding last election? You may be one of those votes they could afford to lose.

To be perfectly clear, no way I personally could vote for Ford. I have significant concerns based on stuff we’ve seen in Ontario. Just saying I could see a path for him if his ambition were to pull him that way.

 

[CBH99]

The investor reliant tech sector is exiting the country.

Canadian resident inventors and innovators file on average 10 percent fewer applications for patents in the 5 years and last year might have filed 40 percent fewer (still waiting for that report).
Canadian technology innovators start more businesses outside of Canada than inside and that’s by a very wide margin.

Food prices are up and food sales per measured item are way down- demand for food per capita is down for the first time since 1982.

Activity in the Canadian financial sector is nose diving especially Fintech.

Real estate is I don’t know what to even call it.

Commercial construction has fallen off line. Equipment sales are tanking.

Equipment repairs are flattening because parts are expensive relative to declining incomes and profit margins.

Canadians start more business outside of the country than in it.

I mean it’s good for me and probably a lot of you but not a good place to be a young man or woman looking to start a career, especially to start a business.

If you take out business that receive no touch point with government subsidies or procurement then it is in serious decline.

A situation that did not exist 12 years ago with another US President who had a Buy American fetish.

Almost all of Canadas economic problems existed prior to Donald Trump. He just lit the match, or keeps threatening to anyway.

People looking to Carney to solve that are few and far between because he can’t until the whole economy crashes. Best he can do is life support it for a while. That’s why he keeps talking about “sacrifices”. Not his sacrifices - those are for other people.

THANK YOU!

Thank You for articulating that far better than I ever could. This ^^^ is 100% "it..."


He is here to "manage the decline" - a decline that is caused & exasperated by the 'Net Zero' economic policies still proliferating throughout western countries despite proven negative outcomes

I fear the ultimate goal is to turn Canada into a resource extraction hub, which tends to mean they will keep the local standard of living sub par. (It's the unfun part of the whole 'energy superpower' thing. The part they forget to mention...)

Lower wages. Fewer jobs. A scarcity of employment AND optimism, so the ultimate price of extractng our resources is cheaper in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Good2Golf]

It may not seem a big deal to most people, including most people here, but the idea that executives can't bypass legislators on supply is a sensitive issue in the US. Doesn't matter whether it's airplanes or bridges.

Really? Executive bypass of legislators seems very much de rigeur in America these days.

 

[CBH99]

Did they give away half or loan half in exchange for repayments via a share of tolls. I read different things about that… it sounds like the mafia family/private owner of the other existing bridge wants a shake down equity stake in Michigan’s part which not going to happen.

Never say never...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

My understanding is that they gave them half of the bridge, but will keep 100% of the tolls until the cost is covered, and then the toll revenue will be split evenly

Fact check: Canada paid for Gordie Howe Bridge, but doesn’t own it alone

Canada is paying the full upfront cost of the Gordie Howe International Bridge because of a binational deal reached after years of studies, legal battles and political resistance on the U.S. side of the border.

www.ctvnews.ca

How Canada plans to recover the money​

Although Canada is covering the full upfront price, the federal government expects to recover the investment over time.

Under the agreement, tolls collected from bridge users will be used to reimburse Canada for the funds it advanced.

Once the costs are fully recouped, toll revenue will be shared with the state of Michigan.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Canada funded the MI "half share" of the bridge because MI legislators would not. When Canada recovers that "loan" from tolls, the toll revenues are to be equally shared.

Irrespective of what Trump or Maroun wants, the acceptance of funding from a foreign government by an executive wanting to bypass a legislature is a wrinkle that some people want to explore. It may not seem a big deal to most people, including most people here, but the idea that executives can't bypass legislators on supply is a sensitive issue in the US. Doesn't matter whether it's airplanes or bridges.

Explore all they want - the end result is the Trump approved the 'fast tracking' the building of the bridge during his first term. The Republican Governor of Michigan, at the time, was (and still 100% is) completely onside with the building of the bridge.

Michigan's state constitution, amended in 1963, allows for 'inter-governmental agreements without approval by the state legislation' and it 'specifically talks about the Dominion of Canada as one of those inter-governmental bodies that agreements can be made with.'

 

[Cloud Cover]

Out of curiosity how big was the CPC lead in your riding last election? You may be one of those votes they could afford to lose.

To be perfectly clear, no way I personally could vote for Ford. I have significant concerns based on stuff we’ve seen in Ontario. Just saying I could see a path for him if his ambition were to pull him that way.

Had to be north of 70%.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Explore all they want - the end result is the Trump approved the 'fast tracking' the building of the bridge during his first term. The Republican Governor of Michigan, at the time, was (and still 100% is) completely onside with the building of the bridge.

Michigan's state constitution, amended in 1963, allows for 'inter-governmental agreements without approval by the state legislation' and it 'specifically talks about the Dominion of Canada as one of those inter-governmental bodies that agreements can be made with.'

Here is the actual piece of Michigan legislation that the Republican Governor used in order to cement the deal between the State of Michigan and the Federal Government of Canada for the building of the Michigan portion of the Gordie Howe Bridge.

MCL - Article III § 5 - Michigan Legislature

www.legislature.mi.gov

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 5 Intergovernmental agreements; service by public officers and employees.


Sec. 5.

Subject to provisions of general law, this state or any political subdivision thereof, any governmental authority or any combination thereof may enter into agreements for the performance, financing or execution of their respective functions, with any one or more of the other states, the United States, the Dominion of Canada, or any political subdivision thereof unless otherwise provided in this constitution. Any other provision of this constitution notwithstanding, an officer or employee of the state or of any such unit of government or subdivision or agency thereof may serve on or with any governmental body established for the purposes set forth in this section and shall not be required to relinquish his office or employment by reason of such service. The legislature may impose such restrictions, limitations or conditions on such service as it may deem appropriate.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Really? Executive bypass of legislators seems very much de rigeur in America these days.

Sure. Some people are for it - usually only when their favoured party controls an executive office - and some are against. Even here, I am confident that some people are "for" the way this bridge was funded, but "against" Trump accepting a plane as "a gift to America" from Qatar.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Here is the actual piece of Michigan legislation that the Republican Governor used in order to cement the deal between the State of Michigan and the Federal Government of Canada for the building of the Michigan portion of the Gordie Howe Bridge.

MCL - Article III § 5 - Michigan Legislature

www.legislature.mi.gov

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 5 Intergovernmental agreements; service by public officers and employees.


Sec. 5.

Subject to provisions of general law, this state or any political subdivision thereof, any governmental authority or any combination thereof may enter into agreements for the performance, financing or execution of their respective functions, with any one or more of the other states, the United States, the Dominion of Canada, or any political subdivision thereof unless otherwise provided in this constitution. Any other provision of this constitution notwithstanding, an officer or employee of the state or of any such unit of government or subdivision or agency thereof may serve on or with any governmental body established for the purposes set forth in this section and shall not be required to relinquish his office or employment by reason of such service. The legislature may impose such restrictions, limitations or conditions on such service as it may deem appropriate.

Yes. It's very interesting, including how people line up on each side to support or oppose the power and its implications. Imagine "any political subdivision thereof" realizing it can enter into financing (and other) agreements with Canada, and acting on that power. Would the state government merely shrug and concede that lower levels of government have it, too?

I doubt anyone expects the bridge to be closed. What some have noticed is this interesting clause for bypassing the legislature on funding. A quest to change the constitution might not go anywhere; the provision hasn't been widely abused.