Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[CBH99]

I can't find any support for that contention:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/prime-ministers-and-government-spending-2023.pdf

Nonetheless, the increase in per-person spending is egregious, and is the inescapable outcome of a self-involved and unaware people when led by a narcissistic unserious buffon like Trudeau.

Voters - this one is on you

I can't find any support for that contention:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/prime-ministers-and-government-spending-2023.pdf

Nonetheless, the increase in per-person spending is egregious, and is the inescapable outcome of a self-involved and unaware people when led by a narcissistic unserious buffon like Trudeau.

Voters - this one is on you

Justin Trudeau’s legacy—record-high spending and massive debt

The government ran nine consecutive deficits including a $61.9 billion deficit last fiscal year.

www.fraserinstitute.org

Opinion: Mark Carney was right: He’s not Justin Trudeau. He spends more

Ottawa's recently released Main Estimates show spending up, with 26 agencies and departments increasing 20 per cent or more. Find out more

financialpost.com

---

Turns out I can't find anything to solifidy the claim either, but I remember it being big news when it was first announced.

I am fairly certain it had to do with Trudeau & Freeland doubling our national debt. So the debt that had accumulated over approx 156 years, they managed to double that debt in a mere 8 years...hence the assertion that he did in fact spend more than all previous PM's combined. (Accounting can be a tricky business, so maybe I'm off....but nonetheless, like you said, unacceptable.)

---

Here is the AI overview (still getting used to this whole AI thing, so please forgive me for not including a link)

While many Canadian governments have increased the national debt, Sir Robert Borden's government (1911-1920), particularly during World War I, increased per-person debt levels the most due to the war and subsequent economic downturns. Justin Trudeau's government also significantly increased debt, becoming the only prime minister since 1900 to increase per-person debt during a period without a major war or economic downturn.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Sir Robert Borden (1911-1920):
  Borden's government saw the largest increase in per-person debt due to the high costs of World War I and the economic challenges that followed.
  
  
• Justin Trudeau (2015-Present):
  While Trudeau's government did not face a major war or recession initially, it increased spending and debt levels, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. He is the only prime minister since 1900 to increase per-person debt without a war or significant economic downturn.
  
  
• Other notable periods of debt accumulation:
  Other periods of significant debt increases include the tenures of William Lyon Mackenzie King (1935-1948) and during the 1990s recession.
  
  
• Factors influencing debt:
  It's important to note that debt levels can be affected by global events like wars and economic downturns, as well as government spending decisions.
  

 

[Navy_Pete]

I’ve worked in Europe, the US and Canada. The 1 thing that I’ve disliked intensely about working in Canada vs in the US, the entire approach that nothing can get done without complete consensus/agreement by all parties involved. In the business world it can be crippling, lead to no sense of urgency, drive or in the worst case lack of understanding why something needs to get done. In the US I experienced the opposite, all sides were listened to but then the decision maker would bang the table and declare what the decision was and everyone then had their marching orders and the level of urgency needed to get to the finish line.
I miss still that 25yrs later and when I find it here in Toronto, more often than not it’s from someone who grew up in the Windsor-Chatham-Sarnia triangle because in my experiences, people from this area are hybrid AmeriCanadians, they have traits from both sides of the border and can work seamlessly in either place.

The entire DPS is a great example of this; all defence project related decisions are done by concensus by multiple departments at the DG, ADM, DM level, and it's because there isn't a single department 'in charge' that can make those decisions.

We already do integrated project teams where PSPC and IC are embedded in PMOs, and just report back to their chains, we do enough major procurements that should just collapse the chains and have them part of the permanent defence procurement side with a single CoC so there is a decision maker.

It is wild to me that so many people who have zero responsibility for actually delivring the project can have a 'no' function but there isn't really one person with a 'yes' until you get to Minister or sometimes PM.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Housing Minister Gregor Robertson's properties justify scrutiny

A clue behind Gregor "I don't want housing prices to drop" Robertsons comments.

Actually $10M clues.

“After telling Canadians he didn’t want home prices to go down, we now learn the Liberal housing minister, Gregor Robertson, holds a $10-million real estate empire. Canadians struggling to afford a home have every reason not to trust the Liberals on housing,” Davidson said.

 

[brihard]

Bill C-5, the law to reduce federal barriers to interprovincial trade, and to allow for expedited approval of projects in the national interest, is now law. It passed the senate today, and just a short time ago got Royal Assent.

PM Carney wasn’t kidding when he said he was determined to see this pass swiftly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1938358016220205425

 

[Remius]

Bill C-5, the law to reduce federal barriers to interprovincial trade, and to allow for expedited approval of projects in the national interest, is now law. It passed the senate today, and just a short time ago got Royal Assent.

PM Carney wasn’t kidding when he said he was determined to see this pass swiftly.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1938358016220205425

Setting the ground work.

 

[brihard]

Setting the ground work.

Yup. Now actual specific projects need to be proposed.

 

[CBH99]

Justin Trudeau’s legacy—record-high spending and massive debt

The government ran nine consecutive deficits including a $61.9 billion deficit last fiscal year.

www.fraserinstitute.org

Opinion: Mark Carney was right: He’s not Justin Trudeau. He spends more

Ottawa's recently released Main Estimates show spending up, with 26 agencies and departments increasing 20 per cent or more. Find out more

financialpost.com

---

Turns out I can't find anything to solifidy the claim either, but I remember it being big news when it was first announced.

I am fairly certain it had to do with Trudeau & Freeland doubling our national debt. So the debt that had accumulated over approx 156 years, they managed to double that debt in a mere 8 years...hence the assertion that he did in fact spend more than all previous PM's combined. (Accounting can be a tricky business, so maybe I'm off....but nonetheless, like you said, unacceptable.)

---

Here is the AI overview (still getting used to this whole AI thing, so please forgive me for not including a link)

While many Canadian governments have increased the national debt, Sir Robert Borden's government (1911-1920), particularly during World War I, increased per-person debt levels the most due to the war and subsequent economic downturns. Justin Trudeau's government also significantly increased debt, becoming the only prime minister since 1900 to increase per-person debt during a period without a major war or economic downturn.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Sir Robert Borden (1911-1920):
  Borden's government saw the largest increase in per-person debt due to the high costs of World War I and the economic challenges that followed.
  
  
• Justin Trudeau (2015-Present):
  While Trudeau's government did not face a major war or recession initially, it increased spending and debt levels, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. He is the only prime minister since 1900 to increase per-person debt without a war or significant economic downturn.
  
  
• Other notable periods of debt accumulation:
  Other periods of significant debt increases include the tenures of William Lyon Mackenzie King (1935-1948) and during the 1990s recession.
  
  
• Factors influencing debt:
  It's important to note that debt levels can be affected by global events like wars and economic downturns, as well as government spending decisions.

My connection dropped when attempting to post this - looks like it duplicated part of my post & chopped off the second half

My main point was just in agreement that we have a spending problem, and have for a few years now.



Re Trudeau spending more money than all previous PM's combined...perhaps I worded that poorly.

I was just stating that our national debt doubled under Trudeau/Freeland

 

[The Bread Guy]

Really? my experience (32 years) is that bureaucrats and senior management are in a permanent CYA mode. Decisions are entirely based upon how it will look and not what is best.

And who, in the end, worries about how it will look? Especially to the voter?

For sure bureaucracy is big-time focussed on process, but who shapes the “no surprises for the Minister” environment?

Both sides can take a portion of the blame here.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Setting the ground work.

As others are doing …

Two First Nations setting up encampment near proposed bridge to Ring of Fire

A political decision one thousand kilometres from Jeronimo Kataquapit's home in a remote First Nation near James Bay set the course for his summer.

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

 

[Jarnhamar]

As others are doing …

Two First Nations setting up encampment near proposed bridge to Ring of Fire

A political decision one thousand kilometres from Jeronimo Kataquapit's home in a remote First Nation near James Bay set the course for his summer.

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

There's so much to take away from that article.

Full-time protesters. It's Iike being paid to camp. Who wouldn't love that.

 

[brihard]

As others are doing …

Two First Nations setting up encampment near proposed bridge to Ring of Fire

A political decision one thousand kilometres from Jeronimo Kataquapit's home in a remote First Nation near James Bay set the course for his summer.

www.thecanadianpressnews.ca

Between the Ontario Bill 5, and federal bill C-5, there’s some easy messaging to be had.

 

[MilEME09]

Canadian average wages outpacing inflation, Statistics Canada reports

Average wages for working Canadians outpaced inflation on a year-over-year basis in April, according to data from Statistics Canada.

www.ctvnews.ca

Wage growth finally out pacing inflation, though job vacancies are also going down in some regions. Which is surprising given unemployment in some of these areas is stable but there's just less jobs to go around.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Housing Minister Gregor Robertson's properties justify scrutiny

A clue behind Gregor "I don't want housing prices to drop" Robertsons comments.

Actually $10M clues.

I don’t think you’d find a single homeowner or mortgage holder who would want the value of their house to fall in value. None.

 

[lenaitch]

There's so much to take away from that article.

Full-time protesters. It's Iike being paid to camp. Who wouldn't love that.

And flying in and out. Not cheap.

I know some of the FNTs in the area are in favour of the RofF so it could get interesting. No doubt sympathy protests and blockades will pop up around the country because, why not.

I suspect if the area was carved off as some Nunavut-like self-governing territory, deals would already be struck and cheques cashed. At the end of the day, it's all about the money. A portable Starlink account doesn't pay for itself.

 

[Furniture]

I don’t think you’d find a single homeowner or mortgage holder who would want the value of their house to fall in value. None.

They will want people to buy their home to fund their retirement though... If prices don't come down, there won't be anyone who can buy.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I don’t think you’d find a single homeowner or mortgage holder who would want the value of their house to fall in value. None.

No, of course.

It's just a tiny conflict of interest for a housing minister.

 

[YZT580]

And who, in the end, worries about how it will look? Especially to the voter?

For sure bureaucracy is big-time focussed on process, but who shapes the “no surprises for the Minister” environment?

Both sides can take a portion of the blame here.

not trying for blame. We are entrenched in the idea that somehow, because we reach consensus, we come up with a good solution. I spent 10 years working with a consensus organization (Eurocontrol) and I guarantee that it is the best way to ensure that nothing of consequence will ever be achieved. But consensus does guarantee my 35 years and pension without any complications on route

 

[Czech_pivo]

They will want people to buy their home to fund their retirement though... If prices don't come down, there won't be anyone who can buy.

You don’t grow an economy by having prices fall - it’s called deflation and it’s worse than inflation.

Where I live in Burlington, speculators (also known as builders), will buy up a perfectly fine house built in say 1965, like mine, and tear it down and build a larger house on the lot.
The lot will be around 65-80ft wide, depending on the street and about 115-160ft deep. The existing house will be a side split or a back split in most cases, sometimes a raise ranch. They will all be 3-4 bedrooms and 2-3 baths with a single car garage and be around 1500-2000ft in size. All well treed and nicely landscaped.
The builder/speculator will come along, right now, and offer somewhere around 1.3-1.6m for the perfectly fine house, in a lot of cases the house won’t even be in the market, they will knock on your door and offer this unsolicited.
They will then tear down your house completely so they can build a bigger footprint (new foundation), or leave 1 wall standing (usually a garage wall) so its not considered a new build (less dev fees and restrictions) but a reno.
Where I had 8ft ceilings, they put in 10 or 11ft ceilings, for every floor. Where I had a side split, they put in a full 2 story house. Where I had total privacy in my pool from all my neighbours, I now swim in a fishbowl with giant 2 story homes pushed to the lot lines looking down on my every move in the pool or on the patio or barbecuing or mowing the lawn. Where I had 1 2ton AC unit, they have 2 3 ton AC units. Where I had 50-70yrs old shade trees on my lot, they pay the fine to have the trees cut down and then pay another fine to replace those trees with a half dozen dwarf red Japanese maples that don’t grow over 4m tall and never provide any shade, or privacy or a home to a family of Robins or Cardinals or Red Wing Blackbirds.
And when the last landscapers packs up and leaves, that builder/speculator slaps a price tag of 3.3-3.6m on that new home.
Replacing the perfectly fine home that I was living in and would have sold happily for 1.3-1.4m to a nice family to raise their kids in.
When a home gets valued for its lot/neighborhood and not for the house itself and the cities allow this speculation to grow and grow, there is no easy solution.

 

[Furniture]

You don’t grow an economy by having prices fall - it’s called deflation and it’s worse than inflation.

Where I live in Burlington, speculators (also known as builders), will buy up a perfectly fine house built in say 1965, like mine, and tear it down and build a larger house on the lot.
The lot will be around 65-80ft wide, depending on the street and about 115-160ft deep. The existing house will be a side split or a back split in most cases, sometimes a raise ranch. They will all be 3-4 bedrooms and 2-3 baths with a single car garage and be around 1500-2000ft in size. All well treed and nicely landscaped.
The builder/speculator will come along, right now, and offer somewhere around 1.3-1.6m for the perfectly fine house, in a lot of cases the house won’t even be in the market, they will knock on your door and offer this unsolicited.
They will then tear down your house completely so they can build a bigger footprint (new foundation), or leave 1 wall standing (usually a garage wall) so its not considered a new build (less dev fees and restrictions) but a reno.
Where I had 8ft ceilings, they put in 10 or 11ft ceilings, for every floor. Where I had a side split, they put in a full 2 story house. Where I had total privacy in my pool from all my neighbours, I now swim in a fishbowl with giant 2 story homes pushed to the lot lines looking down on my every move in the pool or on the patio or barbecuing or mowing the lawn. Where I had 1 2ton AC unit, they have 2 3 ton AC units. Where I had 50-70yrs old shade trees on my lot, they pay the fine to have the trees cut down and then pay another fine to replace those trees with a half dozen dwarf red Japanese maples that don’t grow over 4m tall and never provide any shade, or privacy or a home to a family of Robins or Cardinals or Red Wing Blackbirds.
And when the last landscapers packs up and leaves, that builder/speculator slaps a price tag of 3.3-3.6m on that new home.
Replacing the perfectly fine home that I was living in and would have sold happily for 1.3-1.4m to a nice family to raise their kids in.
When a home gets valued for its lot/neighborhood and not for the house itself and the cities allow this speculation to grow and grow, there is no easy solution.

I understand that the problem is complex, my point is simply that even $1.3m is completely outside the realm of possibility for most young people looking to get into the market.

Prices have gone crazy compared to wages, and things are now essentially just current landowners buying other properties. Eventually there won't be enough landowners to prop-up the current prices.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I understand that the problem is complex, my point is simply that even $1.3m is completely outside the realm of possibility for most young people looking to get into the market.

Prices have gone crazy compared to wages, and things are now essentially just current landowners buying other properties. Eventually there won't be enough landowners to prop-up the current prices.

I am all for a devaluing of property. I fully support it.