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

[Jarnhamar]

I don't know about ports but you do realize that with airports, the federal government is just the landlord. Major airports are already operated by non-profit authorities.

Sure, but once the priority becomes maxing revenue and profitability you're going to inevitably increase corporate and private sector influence over infrastructure (that used to be treated primarily as public service).

It will be ironic if we see Liberal supporters defend that considering how often Conservatives get accused of being too close to big business.

 

[brihard]

Yes, an election would be a silly game when there is a near zero percent probability of the CPC, Bloc, or NDP looking for an election. The last time a PM played a game like that, they came out with the same result they went in with. Even with a minority, the LPC were not being prevented from governing, and seemed to be cooperating with the CPC quite effectively. That's what Canadians want from their elected leaders. Carney was elected because he wasn't seen as the old LPC all over again. Acting like the old LPC and calling an unneeded election would poke some pretty big holes in that image.

Internal dissent is not going to be quieted by election that gives everybody else the chance to poke holes in the government's performance, and the about-face on multiple issues that until recently were LPC defining ideas. A few years of steady approval, and getting some concrete accomplishments is what will right the ship inside the LPC.

So, I don’t mean quieting dissent in terms of shutting people up. I mean removing the leverage than a bare one or two vote majority can give party backbenchers when every single vote counts. Just to clarify what I meant there.

Hack was more sharp than necessary, so my apologies for going too far with that term.

You say you're not for any party, but on here the record pretty clearly shows that you have supported the actions of those who keep the LPC in power longer, like when Singh was playing 8D chess by keeping the LPC afloat during the lowest lows of Trudeau's/LPC's popularity. I'm not holding it against you, merely pointing out that from the other side of the screen you come across as pretty heavily slanted in a particular direction, despite protestations to the contrary.

I see the misunderstanding now.

I look at things and do my best analysis of what it means. In the case of political acts, that doesn’t mean I necessarily politically support a given position or agree with it. In the case of the NDP propping up the LPC with the supply and confidence agreement, that was pure game theory. The NDP cannot form government outright; their best realistic strategic position is as the kingmaker to an LPC minority. That’s their natural and arguably only relevant partner. So, with what pieces were where on the chessboard at that time, it was the best pragmatic option for the NDP. Others were saying they should also force the election; that of course would be an absurd move- zero chance they come out of it better, particularly given the likelihood of a CPC victory at the time. So, I said that supporting the LPC was what made sense for the NDP to do; it was their only COA they gave them any chance at policy wins.

That’s not me being a fan of the NDP, or a fan of anyone in particular or just generally who props up an LPC government. I can just look at the board and imagine what move I’d consider in their shoes. Sometimes it can be really hard to tell what would gain or lose positional advantage… That particular case was just very obvious. For the same reason it was obviously in CPC’s favour to try to get an election in late 2024 before PM Trudeau was replaced, but they lacked the Parliamentary power to get it.

I hope this clarifies what positions I specifically am (and am not) taking or have taken, and why? “What makes sense for that guy” often isn’t “What I personally prefer”.

 

[lenaitch]

Sure, but once the priority becomes maxing revenue and profitability you're going to inevitably increase corporate and private sector influence over infrastructure (that used to be treated primarily as public service).

It will be ironic if we see Liberal supporters defend that considering how often Conservatives get accused of being too close to big business.

Again, only speaking about airports, I'm not sure how it would shake out operationally. The federal government still has a strong regulatory mandate over the industry. I am assuming this divestment, if it went through, would be attractive to institutional investors such as pension plans and insurance companies who favour low-risk steady returns from the rental income. I don't see operations shifting away from the current non-profit operating authorities. Could be wrong.

 

[HavokFour]

I hope this materializes into some serious build, build, build.

Canada has become most attractive market for infrastructure investors, global survey finds

Rise to top ranking suggests Ottawa’s push to boost the country’s profile is attracting worldwide attention

www.theglobeandmail.com

Archive

Canada ranks ahead of the United States, Mexico, Germany and several European and Nordic countries in the latest semi-annual survey by the Global Infrastructure Investor Association (GIIA).

The country’s outlook “improved materially,” according to the survey results, signalling that investors are responding well to the federal government’s plan to launch major projects that can improve Canada’s economic growth and productivity over time.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Does this count as a win?

Agnico Eagle investing $14 billion in Northern Ontario mines

Ontario touts its fast permitting regime as a calling card to attract mining investment

www.sudbury.com

Agnico Eagle investing $14 billion in Northern Ontario mines​

 

[daftandbarmy]

Again, only speaking about airports, I'm not sure how it would shake out operationally. The federal government still has a strong regulatory mandate over the industry. I am assuming this divestment, if it went through, would be attractive to institutional investors such as pension plans and insurance companies who favour low-risk steady returns from the rental income. I don't see operations shifting away from the current non-profit operating authorities. Could be wrong.

On the other hand... time to kick airports out of the public sector nest...

Canada's government is looking at privatizing airports. What would that accomplish?​

Fares rose 'massively' when Australia privatized its airports, expert says​

The Liberal government raised some eyebrows last week when it mentioned the possibility of privatizing Canada's federally owned airports, but it's not the first time the idea has been tabled.

The concept was first pitched in November's budget but largely flew under the radar. The idea garnered more attention when it was mentioned in last week's spring economic update.

According to the document, the government is "assessing opportunities to unlock the full value of airports in support of investments in Canada’s long-term growth, including through alternative models of ownership."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/how-will-airport-privatization-impact-travel-9.7189042

 

[Czech_pivo]

On the other hand... time to kick airports out of the public sector nest...

Canada's government is looking at privatizing airports. What would that accomplish?​

Fares rose 'massively' when Australia privatized its airports, expert says​

The Liberal government raised some eyebrows last week when it mentioned the possibility of privatizing Canada's federally owned airports, but it's not the first time the idea has been tabled.

The concept was first pitched in November's budget but largely flew under the radar. The idea garnered more attention when it was mentioned in last week's spring economic update.

According to the document, the government is "assessing opportunities to unlock the full value of airports in support of investments in Canada’s long-term growth, including through alternative models of ownership."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/how-will-airport-privatization-impact-travel-9.7189042

Did the 'Fares' rise 'massively' or did the 'fees and surcharges' rise massively?

I still use 'Google Flight Matrix' when I do research on my flights to Europe. One of the main reasons is to understand what the true cost of the flight is as 'Surcharges' are a massive part of some of the fees.

Here's an example of a flight I'm looking at from Toronto to Malaga: , in Spain this summer.

1) Air Canada as the carrier - via Munich on the way there and via Frankfort on the way home



2) Air Italia as the carrier - via Rome both there and back.



The cost of the flights is only different by 30$ - but the cost of the fares - the actual fare - is different by 200$.

 

[RangerRay]

And just why shouldn't asylum seekers be allowed to vote for party members they want to represent them as future Canadians? Or IDing yourself with an Amazon order.

Seems like someone is a sore loser.

Ontario Liberals can't sweep voting irregularities under rug

LILLEY: Ontario Liberals can't sweep voting irregularities under rug

The Ontario Liberal nomination race mess in Scarborough Southwest can’t simply be swept under the rug, writes Brian Lilley. Find out more.

torontosun.com

JFC…

Sure, but once the priority becomes maxing revenue and profitability you're going to inevitably increase corporate and private sector influence over infrastructure (that used to be treated primarily as public service).

It will be ironic if we see Liberal supporters defend that considering how often Conservatives get accused of being too close to big business.

Especially considering that the Tories are frequently accused, with some cause, of wanting to privatize everything.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Again, only speaking about airports, I'm not sure how it would shake out operationally. The federal government still has a strong regulatory mandate over the industry. I am assuming this divestment, if it went through, would be attractive to institutional investors such as pension plans and insurance companies who favour low-risk steady returns from the rental income. I don't see operations shifting away from the current non-profit operating authorities. Could be wrong.

The property owners can make a profit, but not the people operating a business on the property. What an odd country we have.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Fares rose 'massively' when Australia privatized its airports, expert says"

An "expert" would know how much was due to monopoly pricing, and how much was due to removal of subsidies (unless the privatized operations are still subsidized). Two simple numbers. Why are experts and/or reporters so shy about producing them?