Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Halifax Tar]

Interesting take from Sylvain Charlebois.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2060407685099483425

 

[Czech_pivo]

Interesting take from Sylvain Charlebois.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2060407685099483425

Perception is everything.

 

[brihard]

Interesting take from Sylvain Charlebois.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2060407685099483425

We can be headed in the best direction reasonably and realistically achievable at this time while still being at the mercy of larger macroeconomic forces. Even the best case in policy and economic terms may not be a great outcome in the moment when subject to economic attack from our largest trading partner.

Now, I’m not saying we actually are in the best possible overall direction. Generally I think the government is setting us on the right track; there could always be some things done better. However short of economic and political capitulation to the U.S., I think we’d inevitably be feeling pain right now.

 

[YZT580]

We can be headed in the best direction reasonably and realistically achievable at this time while still being at the mercy of larger macroeconomic forces. Even the best case in policy and economic terms may not be a great outcome in the moment when subject to economic attack from our largest trading partner.

Now, I’m not saying we actually are in the best possible overall direction. Generally I think the government is setting us on the right track; there could always be some things done better. However short of economic and political capitulation to the U.S., I think we’d inevitably be feeling pain right now.

Every time I think we are doing really bad I take a look at England.

 

[suffolkowner]

Fault is a personal conclusion of mine, but he was the biggest and possibly sole driver behind the way the climate change policies and the carbon taxes were pushed, as well as likely a lot of ministerial foot dragging on various environmental assessments and other issues, where the focus was on the environment regardless of the impact on Canadians and Canadian businesses.

If it was up to him, all the oil would stay in the ground, which is fine in theory if you completely ignore that pretty much every advance in the industrial revolution onwards and the entire information age relies heavily on petrochemicals.

Emission controls on vehicles and industries, investment in cleaner energy (like nuclear mini and micro energy), etc all have a real and measurable impact on Canadian emissions than the punitive approach he tried to take, and is being walked back because it is a shitty way to do it.

Things like EV tax credits, home energy improvement programs, emission improvement tax credits for industry etc are actually pretty effective in real terms. One big win generally is the planned upgrade of the national energy grid which is long overdue, and needed EV or not to support growth, but a very real measure the government can do on the infra background that actually enables a lot of things that will actually make a difference.

these just seem like policy disagreements to me, not something to attract too much vitriol over to me

 

[suffolkowner]

or continue to purchase waterfront acreage in areas that are supposed to be underwater in a few years. They have the inside knowledge, are addicted to making money and yet they blow it on ocean front property. Incidentally, as far as sea level rise is concerned, many of those islands that were supposed to disappear have actually gained ground. The one the UN used as a poster child, Tuvalu has actually increased by 3%. But don't believe me, believe the experts: Kench, P.S. et al., Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations.
So why is it that you continue to promote a return to the 18th century way of living because that is the only way you will ever meet the limits being imposed by government? I got it: you are lifetime members of the Justin, Guilbeault fan club. The very fact that they supported it is proof enough that there is a scam built in.

There are lots of really expert experts who totally disagree with the entire issue of AGW. Here are a few of them Mann and his hockey stick were proven totally false. The Emails that were released contained ample evidence of conspiracy amongst the correspondents. Polar bears are increasing in number and the 97% consensus is based upon quicksand.

1. Lennart O. Bengtsson, who was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany.
2. John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
3. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville, and NASA. He and Dr John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.<a data-state="closed" data-grace-area-trigger="" href="Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)"><span>34</span></a>
4. Judith A. Curry, who due to the “craziness” of the politicization of climate science, in 2017 took early retirement from her position as Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, USA, a position she had held for 15 years.
5. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, contributed to the IPCC’s 1995 and 2001 reports, but became skeptical of the alarmist climate model projections.
6. Nir J. Shaviv, Professor and Chair of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

most of these individuals dont attract much attention in scientific circles because they are just bad at the science





interestingly Spencer is having it out with Pat Frank right now on his insane ideas, showing that within the small group of skeptics there is no agreement on an alternative hypothesis

 

[Navy_Pete]

these just seem like policy disagreements to me, not something to attract too much vitriol over to me

Well, he was also arrested dozens of times for pretty high profile protests, was generally a bit of a zealot that ignored all reasonable attempts at discussion, and was his own worst enemy. I can not agree with someone's policies but not have a personal issue with someone, but even as a social handgrenade with typical autistic issues with people skills, this guy is awful at dealing with any suggestions.

So less of a policy to him, and more like a religious belief, and questioning that was heresy.

Canada's greatest advantage is our natural resources and employs hundreds of thousands of people while supporting a lot more, so his policies and divisive approach directly impacted a signficant number of people pretty negatively, and the overall policy impacts made everything more expensive for all Canadians (directly and indirectly). And I agree with the goal of decarbonization, just his approach is insanely unworkable.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The hits keep coming

Canada plummets in ‘best country’ ranking — placing lower than U.S.

Canada has fallen more than a dozen spots in a “best countries” list, sinking one place lower than the United States. Read on.

torontosun.com

 

[suffolkowner]

Well, he was also arrested dozens of times for pretty high profile protests, was generally a bit of a zealot that ignored all reasonable attempts at discussion, and was his own worst enemy. I can not agree with someone's policies but not have a personal issue with someone, but even as a social handgrenade with typical autistic issues with people skills, this guy is awful at dealing with any suggestions.

So less of a policy to him, and more like a religious belief, and questioning that was heresy.

Canada's greatest advantage is our natural resources and employs hundreds of thousands of people while supporting a lot more, so his policies and divisive approach directly impacted a signficant number of people pretty negatively, and the overall policy impacts made everything more expensive for all Canadians (directly and indirectly). And I agree with the goal of decarbonization, just his approach is insanely unworkable.

well its possible he was a bad choice as a Minister based on his past but the history of civil disobedience just speaks to the passion and conviction he had for the ideas. Not a negative IMO

If his religious belief is that AGW is really, really bad that is just based on good science

Balancing natural resource use and environmental outcomes is always going to be a difficult choice

We'll see if we can decarbonise without an approach

 

[Altair]

The hits keep coming

Canada plummets in ‘best country’ ranking — placing lower than U.S.

Canada has fallen more than a dozen spots in a “best countries” list, sinking one place lower than the United States. Read on.

torontosun.com

Hahahaha, yes, we dropped due to low renewable energy use and our environmental rankings dropped due to carbon emissions

We best get right on those issue, ya?

Hahaha

Let's bring back trudeau while we are at it, we were 1st in 2021

 

[Navy_Pete]

well its possible he was a bad choice as a Minister based on his past but the history of civil disobedience just speaks to the passion and conviction he had for the ideas. Not a negative IMO

If his religious belief is that AGW is really, really bad that is just based on good science

Balancing natural resource use and environmental outcomes is always going to be a difficult choice

We'll see if we can decarbonise without an approach

Yeah, and while I am onboard with his goal, and appreciated his passion and conviction, I don't think he ws the right personality to be in charge of any of it as he's too inflexible and seemed to lack all basic practical grounding.

Sometimes having that big vision guy works out, but very rapidly falls apart as soon as they touch things, and I think the George Lucas dialogue writing is a great example (as opposed to VFX, where he had an idea, and then let the wizards that worked for him figure out how to do it).

I think things like generational reinvestment in the grid and development of the nuclear reactors both poitn towards there being an approach, but also realizing that exporting LNG to allies like Germany helps stabilize the globe by undercutting Russia's stranglehold, so has huge soft power benefits for us and the EU, and hopefully rolling back on some of the massive resentment that is feeding the Alberta separatist movement. Maybe not, as there are a lot of people too dug in that instantly had the F&#K CARNEY stickers, but once in place will keep delivering something tangible regardless of who is in power.

 

[suffolkowner]

Yeah, and while I am onboard with his goal, and appreciated his passion and conviction, I don't think he ws the right personality to be in charge of any of it as he's too inflexible and seemed to lack all basic practical grounding.

Sometimes having that big vision guy works out, but very rapidly falls apart as soon as they touch things, and I think the George Lucas dialogue writing is a great example (as opposed to VFX, where he had an idea, and then let the wizards that worked for him figure out how to do it).

I think things like generational reinvestment in the grid and development of the nuclear reactors both poitn towards there being an approach, but also realizing that exporting LNG to allies like Germany helps stabilize the globe by undercutting Russia's stranglehold, so has huge soft power benefits for us and the EU, and hopefully rolling back on some of the massive resentment that is feeding the Alberta separatist movement. Maybe not, as there are a lot of people too dug in that instantly had the F&#K CARNEY stickers, but once in place will keep delivering something tangible regardless of who is in power.

cant say never met the man and honestly im not tuned in enough to the political relationships and machinations going on to know
I question what was wrong with the policies and whether any alternatives will work

 

[YZT580]

most of these individuals dont attract much attention in scientific circles because they are just bad at the science
View attachment 100549


View attachment 100550

interestingly Spencer is having it out with Pat Frank right now on his insane ideas, showing that within the small group of skeptics there is no agreement on an alternative hypothesis

honestly you don't attain those positions without knowing just a little bit about the topic. No.1 was head of research at the European Centre for medium range weather forecasts and then founded the department of theoretical climate modelling and participated in their development. So I suspect he is a little bit known in the field.
No.2 is another loser. He developed the first successful satellite temperature record in collaboration with another scientist. Here is what Wilki has to say: He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites, he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."</a> In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
No.3 Roy Spencer He was the other half of the Satellite development. Again from wilki. He is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. His position on AGW is simply that there is some but it isn't worth worrying about and has written several books on the subject.
No.4 Judith A. Curry She is an interesting case. She is very well known and she does believe in AGW and, if the worst case scenario were to come to pass it would be bad indeed but she questions the immediacy of of the problem and is firmly opposed to our current efforts. She is no loser.
No.5 Richard S. Lindzen I can't begin to list this fellows achievements. He has published over 200 times as of 2010 on topics I can't begin to understand. He taught at both Harvard and MIT and is totally opposed to all the climate change stuff.
No.6 Nir J. Shaviv is an astrophysicist and is very well known in that field. His observations have led him to maintain that warming is primarily a result of the sun and its rays. He has written a bunch of stuff as welll so all of them are known and all of them, including Judith were highly respected scientists in their field. Mann didn't like her very much but that certainly isn't a vote against anyone.

The problem with my experts is they publish stuff that you don't agree with and thus you insult them and their careers without knowing anything at all about them. Now this whole thing is a long way removed from the topic so I am going to cease my participation here with a hearty apology to the mods who have been very patient. ciao

 

[daftandbarmy]

'Technical recession' = recession...

Canada slips into technical recession as economy stalls in Q1: StatCan​

The Canadian economy is in a “vulnerable position,” according to at least one economist, and although the latest GDP data revealed a technical recession by some definitions, not all economists are ready to declare one formally just yet.

Statistics Canada said Friday that GDP in the first quarter of 2026 fell 0.1 per cent on an annualized rate, and follows a revised one per cent annualized decline in the fourth quarter of 2025. A technical recession is most commonly defined as two consecutive quarters with negative economic growth.

On a quarter-over-quarter basis, the agency says growth was essentially unchanged, but small movements in quarterly figures are magnified when converted into annualized rates. Real GDP declined last October and in March, but growth was either flat or positive in the four months in between.

“Don’t get me wrong, the economy has struggled to gain any meaningful traction over the last year … but for now, we wouldn’t necessarily call it a technical recession,” TD Bank economist Marc Ercolao said to The Canadian Press.

Canada slips into technical recession as economy stalls in Q1: StatCan - National | Globalnews.ca

Statistics Canada says economic growth stalled in the first quarter and real gross domestic product was slightly negative on an annualized basis.

globalnews.ca

 

[Altair]

First Chinese-made EVs arrive in Canada under deal Carney struck with Xi

The cars will be the first to be imported by Canada under a deal that allows up to 49,000 Chinese EVs a year at a lower tariff rate. Read on

financialpost.com

Chinese-made electric vehicles are beginning to arrive in Canada under a new arrangement that Prime Minister Mark Carney agreed to in January during a visit with China’s President Xi Jinping.
Article content
The cars will be the first to be imported by Canada under a deal that allows as many as 49,000 Chinese EVs in a 12-month period at a tariff rate of around 6 per cent. Prior to this year, Canada had a tariff of more than 100 per cent on those products, effectively shutting them out.

Canadian canola export statistics | Canola Council of Canada

Find current and historic statistics for export volumes and values of canola seed, oil and meal to top markets, as well as average prices.

www.canolacouncil.org

meanwhile exports of Canola to China has gone from zero to being the biggest market again.

 

[daftandbarmy]

...raising the question of whether the burden of proof is on those claiming "climate change is an existential threat", or on those claiming "climate change is not an existential threat".

I could probably imagine a large number of climate change scenarios that would be existential threats. But they are all in the realm of "underpants gnome" 1-2-3.

The wheels have pretty much come off of the original two-plus-decades-ago climate alarmism. It was obvious from "go" that people simultaneously claiming that greenhouse effect was going to warm things and denying that greenhouse effect was not going to produce a more humid climate had to be wrong. Between the CO2 and humidity increases, we should always have expected a more vegetated world. And so people have started to observe.

But somehow climate alarmist zealots manage to keep grabbing the controls at all levels of government in Canada, wasting finite resources in pursuit of quests to undo a tiny fraction of the "damage" being effected in less prosperous countries.

Nothing beats a spare-no-expense cause for grifting opportunities.

‘Panic is a terrible policy advisor”…


Bjorn Lomborg: Al Gore’s inaccurate untruths distorted policy

Climate alarmism raised awareness but it skewed policy toward expansive emissions reductions rather than research into cheap clean energy

Two decades ago, Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” thrust climate change into the global spotlight. Its dramatic imagery and dire warnings helped transform a niche concern into a front-page crisis, influencing rich-country leaders and elite jet-setters, and inspiring a generation of activists.

Twenty years on is sufficient distance to reflect, not just on the film’s impact, but also on its accuracy. Many of Gore’s most alarming predictions have failed to materialize, while the policy response he helped inspire has proved extraordinarily flawed.

The film’s core narrative was that climate change is driving ever-worsening disasters, such as floods, droughts, storms and wildfires. Yet, over the past century, even as global population quadrupled, deaths from these climate-related disasters have plummeted. In the 1920s, an average of nearly half a million people died from such events every year. Today, that number is under 10,000 — a decline of over 97 per cent. Richer, smarter societies have made us dramatically safer, proving adaptation and resilience work far better than alarmism suggests.

Gore’s film claimed we would see more frequent and stronger hurricanes because of climate change. The movie’s poster showed a hurricane coming out of a smokestack. But in fact global data reveal a slight decline both in hurricanes’ frequency and in their total energy since comprehensive satellite data became available in 1980.

Wildfires follow a similar pattern. Globally, the area burned annually has fallen by more than 25 per cent over the past quarter century, according to NASA data. Because of forest mismanagement, recent years have seen large U.S. fires. But the 1930s Dust Bowl was five times worse. On all other continents fires are down.

The film famously highlighted polar bears as a symbol of impending ecological collapse, suggesting they were drowning due to melting ice. In reality, polar bear populations have more than doubled — from around 12,000 in the 1960s to over 26,000 today. The primary historical threat was hunting, not climate change, and Gore’s claims have simply turned out to be wrong.

The film’s call to action spurred expensive emissions reductions. Yet fossil fuel consumption keeps increasing. Why? Because cheap and reliable power drives growth. As a result, global emissions have set records nearly every year since 2006.

The data show we are nowhere near a green transition. In 2006, according to the International Energy Agency, the world got 82.6 per cent of its total energy from fossil fuels. In 2023, the last year for which global data are available, the share was 81.1 per cent. On this trend, it will take over six centuries to get to zero. Yet Gore’s message was that climate solutions were already at hand — if only rich nations would summon the political will to implement them swiftly and decisively.

Solar and wind technologies have become dramatically cheaper. But they remain fundamentally intermittent, generating power only when the sun shines or the wind blows. Because modern societies require reliable, 24/7 electricity, using these renewables requires substantial backup systems — typically fossil-fuel plants. People think batteries can play a large role but, with a few rare exceptions battery backup is measured in minutes, not hours. The result is that we end up paying twice: once for renewables and then again for reliable backup. An Inconvenient Truth ignored these inconvenient engineering and economic realities.

The global cost of climate policies since 2006 has exceeded US$16 trillion. In the United States alone, the Inflation Reduction Act poured hundreds of billions into green tech. Yet because the rich world’s efforts ignore the reality that developing nations require cheap and reliable energy to reduce poverty, emissions continue to climb.

Rich nations account for only 13 per cent of the emissions forecast to take place in the rest of the 21st century. Emerging giants like China, India and Africa drive the rest. Even if all rich countries achieved net-zero by mid-century, that would avoid less than 0.1°C of warming by 2100, using the UN climate panel’s own model.

Al Gore’s apocalyptic climate predictions have aged poorly. Climate change is a real problem, but the best evidence suggests warming might shave two to three per cent off global GDP by 2100. Here context matters: the UN estimates that by century’s end, the average person will be 4.5 times richer than today. Climate impacts reduce that to “only” 4.35 times richer. People will still be vastly better off — just slightly less so.

The movie’s biggest failing was not making the case for smarter approaches. We need to prioritize innovation. R&D to achieve better batteries, advanced nuclear and fusion could slash costs, making clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels. Adaptation, including sea walls, drought-resistant crops and early warnings, saves lives cheaply. And development lifts billions out of poverty, building resilience.

Two decades on, the main lesson of An Inconvenient Truth is that panic is a terrible policy adviser. Focusing on cost-effective solutions — innovation, adaptation and development — will save trillions of dollars and do much more to help both people and the climate.

Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus and a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.”

Bjorn Lomborg: Al Gore’s inaccurate untruths distorted policy

 

[ArmyRick]

The problem with my experts is they publish stuff that you don't agree with and thus you insult them and their careers without knowing anything at all about them.

One of the biggest fallacies of the "Man Made Climate Change doom and woe for thee" movement.

Mods, I am begging you, please re-open the climate change thread and move this stuff here and we can discuss it, otherwise delete it from here as it goes way beyond the current parliament. Please.

 

[ArmyRick]

On the Doomsday Man made climate change horse shit that is basically an attack on oil and gas, nuclear energy, capitalism and western technological advancement, I will present a whole slew of experts who disagree with the current trendy theories

https://www.youtube.com/@tomnelson2080

Now, here is what I get F-ing sick and tired of, some here are guilty. As they are in society in general.

You don't like what a particular expert has to say, you shit all over their credentials, name call them and label them falsely. This is frankly childish, unproductive and really self destructive.

Do any of you Net zero (which is a stupid concept to begin with, we NEED carbon dioxide in the atmosphere), green/renewable energy, ever stop to think that the experts that present your side of the argument haven't got ego, greed or some other interest beyond the common good in mind?

Nope, if the pro-Man made climate change experts say something, it becomes holy scripture to you and shall not be challaenged.

I challenged it at length on the man made climate change thread.

Open your eyes and face reality. START looking at BOTH sides of the argument and look for where the logic is lacking.

Facts not Fantasies.

 

[ArmyRick]

Champion level gas lighting, evasion and deflection of the Liberal party on "refugees"

Entertaining to watch the BS spewing from the LPC (and the fact ducking)

Don't forget Canada Strong Makes America Great Again says our Prime Minister.

 

[ArmyRick]

So Liberals is MAGA a good thing now? Since PM MC says Canada Strong = Make America Great Again? Or is PM MC "bad" because he is pro MAGA?

Come on now, Liberals, lets hear it.