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

[Altair]

Fixing the problem isn't done by bringing in more people; even bringing in the right people. It is done by eliminating the reasons they are leaving in the first place. Think of your kitchen sink. Put the plug in and start filling it. When it reaches capacity, pull the plug. Water is draining out but it is going in as well so assuming the rates are the same you have reached status quo and that is what we are after in population. The plug is a satisfied population with no desire to leave and a rate of input (the tap) that equals the level of those leaving. If we need a half a million people coming in to keep our population balanced then I say again we have a serious problem and it isn't housing.

But lets talk about housing. Your so-called solution maintains a housing market that is not affordable to the majority of people looking for accommodation. It is arbitrarily protecting people who shouldn't have been there in the first place: the prices were just too high. I don't know how old you are or when you entered the market but I have survived through 17 percent mortgages and two market crashes. Market crashes aren't pretty and people get hurt but there is no other way that you are going to balance the market to permit today's 30 year old buyers to get into the market. Prices have to come down and come down significantly.

Im 39. I bought my house at 35. Im actually fine, as i own 30 percent outright and if i pooled my investments together, i could own another 30 percent. I would make out like a bandit buying property that my peers can no longer afford.

So i say this from a purely altruistic point of view. If you want to screw over, for life, people under 40, sure. Crash the housing market. See how many other dominoes go down with it.

Would make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

 

[Altair]

I said this when the market was on its way up and I will say it now, we should do everything in our power to pop the bubble as the longer we avoid doing so the worse it will be.

Yes some will get hurt, but that is the risk you take if you over-leverage yourself. The government shouldn’t be bailing out those who made poor decisions, individual profits, individual losses.

We can simply slowly, over generations, deflate the bubble. Because popping it wont be limited to the housing market. The broader canadian economy is very tied into it. Take down the housing market, take down the banks, take down the banks, well... 2008 on steriods.

 

[Altair]

I actually have a good idea.

PP wins the election.

PP crashes the housing market.

By the time the dust settles, and you have hundreds of thousands of homeless, a few bank failures, and the broader economy is in ruins, the CPC dont win another election for 30 years.

I like it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I actually have a good idea.

PP wins the election.

PP crashes the housing market.

By the time the dust settles, and you have hundreds of thousands of homeless, a few bank failures, and the broader economy is in ruins, the CPC dont win another election for 30 years.

I like it.

That's a weird thing to say.

 

[Altair]

That's a weird thing to say.

The LPC introduced the NEP and were persona non grata for a generation, more like 2.

Imagine that, but on a national scale, and not just energy policy , but peoples literal homes and jobs, and the economy on a whole.

Its not far fetched to say any party does what people are so flippantly suggesting would be wiped out at the federal level coast to coast to coast.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The LPC introduced the NEP and were persona non grata for a generation, more like 2.

Imagine that, but on a national scale, and not just energy policy , but peoples literal homes and jobs, and the economy on a whole.

Its not far fetched to say any party does what people are so flippantly suggesting would be wiped out at the federal level coast to coast to coast.

Consigning hundreds of thousands of Canadians to homelessness to punish the Conservative party. That's one way to bump up our recruit numbers.

 

[Altair]

Consigning hundreds of thousands of Canadians to homelessness to punish the Conservative party. That's one way to bump up our recruit numbers.

Im not the one suggesting we just crash the housing market for hell of it.

But if anyone were so foolish as to do it, i would rather it be the CPC.

 

[Furniture]

Build something. The PM should have a residence befitting a PM. But that house is tainted to me.

Is the land your house sits on less "tainted" by empropriation? Did you pay the government of France for your land? What about the Mi'kmaq?

Does 1943 magically make 24 Sussex less legitimate than any other expropriation?

 

[Kirkhill]

This article is about the corrosive effects of the Tony Blair premiership in the UK and the stasis resulting from his promotion of what the Brits call Quangos (stand alone non-governmental organisations with regulatory powers) and his preference for subordinating parliament to the courts and the civll service.

It is my view that this particular philosophy has infected all the Westminster polities including ours.

The article addresses how only the authors of the system can correct the system. In the UK that is Labour. In Canada that is the Liberals.

Burnham threatens to be the latest PM thwarted by Tony Blair’s deep state legacy

Even Starmer ended up frustrated that the administrative and judicial state stands in the way of delivering for the voters

www.telegraph.co.uk

"Is there any reason to expect Andy Burnham (assuming it is he) to break the pattern? Will he, like his predecessors, get in promising all sorts of things – welfare reforms, speedier deportations, more houses – only to find his proposals blocked by our bureaucracy and courts?

"Not necessarily. He starts with advantages that his predecessors lacked. First, and most obviously, he will not discover the problem while on the job, since almost everyone in politics now recognises it. Second, because he is taking over from a Labour prime minister, he will not come to office convinced that every problem stems from Tory idiocy. Third, being Labour, he can more easily repeal the most problematic laws.

"A Conservative ministry that set out to scrap the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act would be accused of bullying minorities. Labour would be trusted to remove the objectionable portions of those laws, perhaps replacing them with statutes that had similar names, but that did not give such huge powers to the deep state."

....

Arguably Mark Carney has already started treading this path. He is among the most Conservative Prime Ministers of my life time. He is not repealing laws so much as gutting them and working "over, under, around and through" them.

...

For me this is the most interesting part of the article because it resonates with my view of our Canadian problem.

"Even as I write, I sense the impatience of some readers. Few people are interested in process and, because of our media culture, we never blame civil servants, only politicians. You doubt me? OK. Can you name any of the officials involved in the only event at No 10 during lockdown that met the ordinary definition of a “party”, and which happened while Johnson was 40 miles away? Precisely.

"We are governed, not by the carousel of party politicians, but by the permanent apparat. That apparat might not be partisan, but it does have corporate opinions. It is safetyist, interventionist, eco-obsessed, Europhile, high-spending, woke and invulnerable to public opinion.

"We see its structural biases in every Whitehall ministry. Treasury officials ignore the dynamic effects of tax cuts. Home Office employees hate deporting illegal immigrants: it was their trade union that took the Rwanda scheme to court. The Education Department is slavering at the opportunity to replace Michael Gove’s knowledge-based curriculum with something less demanding and more anti-colonialist. The Business and Trade Department longs to sign up to EU rules. All subordinate their notional departmental goals to their twin ruling principles: net zero and DEI.

"Even more radical was the Blairite juridical revolution. In 2003, seemingly from no higher motive than his dislike of the “men in tights”, Tony Blair announced that the Lord Chancellor would no longer control judicial appointments, and that a Supreme Court would be created. On paper, the Lord Chancellor’s role had indeed been anomalous. He was a member of all three branches of government: head of the judiciary, Speaker of the House of Lords and a member of Cabinet.

"Yet, precisely because that combination was hard to justify, successive Lord Chancellors were meticulously neutral in their judicial appointments, promoting on merit. Once their function was taken over by a new Judicial Appointments Commission, the door was open to political favouritism, usually in the name of DEI, which eventually became formally recognised as part of the Commission’s remit.

"Result? We now have a troop of activist judges who legislate from the bench. Labour ministers are as frustrated as their Tory predecessors by the determination of immigration tribunals to overturn repatriation orders on the flimsiest of pretexts. They are frustrated, too, at the readiness of courts to stop people building runways, power stations, even houses.

"Eventually, Starmer himself, the very embodiment of a Doughty Street activist lawyer, came to see what was wrong: “For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges – using our court processes to frustrate growth.” Naturally he, not the judges, took the rap."

 

[Maxman1]

I actually have a good idea.

PP wins the election.

PP crashes the housing market.

By the time the dust settles, and you have hundreds of thousands of homeless, a few bank failures, and the broader economy is in ruins, the CPC dont win another election for 30 years.

I like it.

 

[Altair]

Me saying that in jest is a little odd maybe, but it pales in comparison to people seriously suggesting that we drop the population of Canada by a million people without considering the wider implications of such an action.

 

[ArmyRick]

See you back soon!

I'm back. Good morning. Or we shall see if it is depending on how everyone reacts. Sheep are sheared and I have lost 10 LBs in water.

Lots of conversation going. Thats good. Good, bad and ugly, we need to talk politics more, not less. Its actually better to do so.

Irrelevant. Blah, blah, blah, VerbtheNoun, blah, blah, blah.

We’ll never know what Poilievre’s word are worth until he’s PM, then we can apply the phrase Facta Non Verba. Until then it’s just Verba Inania.

Not really irrelevant. ALL politicians that actually expect to govern someday need to be talking about their views and how they would tackle problems.

Same can be said for any politician until they sit in the big chair, big promises and then judgement day comes when they sit in the big chair. And too many Canadians (the boomer Liberals seem to be the worse) are shy to criticize the sitting Liberals. The same old Liberal government that has a new leader and a few other MPs switched out.

We STILL see constant negative news stories about housing, economy, jobs, cost of living, immigration, crime, etc. A year + after PM MC has been elected. And the Liberals are quick to put committees in camera, rush through bills, etc. Their "majority" has been used to silence ALL the opposition parties (now we truly feel the damage Jagmeet Singh has done).

Hell, when the Liberals won the election last spring, they took a whole summer off instead of focusing on getting things done. Especially with Trump. This after parliament had been prorogued for months so the Liberals could pick a new leader and hold onto power.

Instead of banging on and on about the LONG list of Liberal failures in governing.

What does the federal government need to be doing and still not doing?
-Get internal trade sorted out already. I do see any real meaningful and impactful differences between inter provincial trade and cooperation (Pierre was the first to bring this up and then a week later the Liberals jumped on back in 2025)

-Quite pissing around with oil and gas. Want to really put it to Trump? Get the damn pipeline built to the West coast, and start publicly calling out George Soros Tides foundation and the Koch and Rockefeller families for their bribing a few key native activist and chiefs in BC to protest. Silence from the left, put a name to it and say it loud.

-Get the ring of fire moving a whole lot quicker in Ontario

-Get other provinces rocking on with minerals, oil and gas (Its NOT all in Alberta)

-Leverage our Oil and Gas and critical minerals for better trade deals with USA and anyone else

-Go with Pierre's plan to reward early completions and penalize late completions of homes for municipalities (the federal funding portion)

-STOP all funding for media and privatize CBC already. This is an obvious conflict of interest and guess what? Rebel, Juno, Northern Perspective receive NO government funding, they report with much more transparency than CBC, CTV and Global to name a few. When people are short on food and homes, why is a dime (outside of buying ads) going to the media (including tax breaks)

-Repeal the previous bills and acts that hinder resource extraction, industry development and economic growth.

-Repeal all the media and social media control bills, ALL of them.

-STOP government funding of polling firms, rather obvious why

-Bring the immigration policy and practices back to the Harper era when the world acknowledged out immigration system was the best

On side note, during the Harper era, our middle class was stronger than the yankee middle class, now not even close.

I ask many of you, to step back and look at Canada and how it is functioning as a whole. I don't get why I hear a plethora of excuses and justifications for the Liberals actions and plans.

While we are at it, I am ok criticizing Pierre for stuff he "may or may not" do if he were PM. If, if, if. Otherwise its Verba Inania. And yes, I have issues with some of Pierre handling of things such as I feel he really needs to bridge out more with Premiers especially Doug Ford (Love him or hate him, he is a powerhouse) and I want him to put his star MPs more often front and center to speak on their areas of expertise.

On that topic, for many here and especially media, lets start judging the GOVERNING party with the same microscopic level we judge the leader of the opposition. Many are quiet on that front, over and over again.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it will be heavenly when the CPC gets in power, but we need to move the needle in the right direction.

Its like Cancer. We diagnose it, acknowledge it and begin the long road to recovery.

 

[Good2Golf]

@ArmyRick, that’s a good list, most of which I totally agree with. I would also add getting tough on foreign interference, which goes back to my point about many, and certainly my own critique about Mark Carney. That should be very high up on the list of things to get done asap.

 

[YZT580]

Im 39. I bought my house at 35. Im actually fine, as i own 30 percent outright and if i pooled my investments together, i could own another 30 percent. I would make out like a bandit buying property that my peers can no longer afford.

So i say this from a purely altruistic point of view. If you want to screw over, for life, people under 40, sure. Crash the housing market. See how many other dominoes go down with it.

Would make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Im 39. I bought my house at 35. Im actually fine, as i own 30 percent outright and if i pooled my investments together, i could own another 30 percent. I would make out like a bandit buying property that my peers can no longer afford.

So i say this from a purely altruistic point of view. If you want to screw over, for life, people under 40, sure. Crash the housing market. See how many other dominoes go down with it.

Would make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

2008 WAS a walk in the park. I go back to the 1989 correction when prices dropped close to 30%. If you had purchased at the top of that one it would have taken you 22 years to recover. But people did. Yes, a number lost a lot but provided people had bought their homes to live in, it didn't matter much. It was actually a plus because it stopped a lot of the buy, wait, sell, buy syndrome where people were moving every 5 years or less and forced them to develop roots in a neighbourhood. The main group that are going to get hurt in this is the speculator. The person that bought with the intent of selling and making money. So what> I have bought a bunch of stocks in the past that shall we say didn't do so well. I lost. If I had bought as many as I had planned I would have lost a lot but that is the gamble when you invest. The only group that I feel sorry for are those that mortgaged out to begin with. I did that with my first house and almost lost it due to that 17% mortgage I mentioned so I know the feeling. If the government can figure out a way to facilitate them maintaining their homes until this passes O.K. but for the rest, allowing more people into the country to fulfill low level jobs is insane and is not the solution. You are only contributing to the ghettoising of neighbourhoods:

 

[suffolkowner]

We can simply slowly, over generations, deflate the bubble. Because popping it wont be limited to the housing market. The broader canadian economy is very tied into it. Take down the housing market, take down the banks, take down the banks, well... 2008 on steriods.

i feel as far as housing goes the early 90s are a better comparable/caution
We have much better interest rates and employment numbers though

 

[Altair]

2008 WAS a walk in the park. I go back to the 1989 correction when prices dropped close to 30%. If you had purchased at the top of that one it would have taken you 22 years to recover. But people did. Yes, a number lost a lot but provided people had bought their homes to live in, it didn't matter much. It was actually a plus because it stopped a lot of the buy, wait, sell, buy syndrome where people were moving every 5 years or less and forced them to develop roots in a neighbourhood. The main group that are going to get hurt in this is the speculator. The person that bought with the intent of selling and making money. So what> I have bought a bunch of stocks in the past that shall we say didn't do so well. I lost. If I had bought as many as I had planned I would have lost a lot but that is the gamble when you invest. The only group that I feel sorry for are those that mortgaged out to begin with. I did that with my first house and almost lost it due to that 17% mortgage I mentioned so I know the feeling. If the government can figure out a way to facilitate them maintaining their homes until this passes O.K. but for the rest, allowing more people into the country to fulfill low level jobs is insane and is not the solution. You are only contributing to the ghettoising of neighbourhoods:

Canada.

Shrinking.

 

[YZT580]

Canada.

Shrinking.

Canada shrinking, why? With half a million coming in we either have a enormous death rate or this is becoming a place where people don't want to live. So again, why? More immigrants is simply a band aid and , that band aid is no longer working.

 

[Altair]

Canada shrinking, why? With half a million coming in we either have a enormous death rate or this is becoming a place where people don't want to live. So again, why? More immigrants is simply a band aid and , that band aid is no longer working.

Women are not having kids.

With 1.3 children per women, and 2.1 needed for replacement level, you don't need a enormous death rate. You just need a regular death rate.

 

[Eaglelord17]

We can simply slowly, over generations, deflate the bubble. Because popping it wont be limited to the housing market. The broader canadian economy is very tied into it. Take down the housing market, take down the banks, take down the banks, well... 2008 on steriods.

Banks don’t lose on mortgages, it is part of the reason they will lend to basically anyone provided it meets the governments minimum numbers. There is literally no way for them to lose money, only how much they can make.

Mortgage insurance made it so if you default the bank gets paid out the difference and don’t have to worry about the asset as the insurer then sells the property. This isn’t America where the bank gets the keys and the problem.

If there is no insurance because they have over 20% downpayment the risk of the bank not being able to get 80% or less the initial purchase value of the house in the sale (not to mention the amount made in interest over the initial years of the mortgage) is exceptionally low and results in a very very low risk of actually losing money there.

There are a few groups at real risk of a correction.

1) Those who bought multiple houses as investment properties using equity from other houses.

2) Those who bought at the peak and couldn’t actually afford it/life circumstances changed (lost job, divorce, interest rate when up more than they can afford, etc.) and now can’t afford it.

3) Those relying on the equity to live a much higher lifestyle than they normally would be able to afford (primarily retired seniors).

Now to get into those who benefit:

1) Everyone who owns a house and just lives in it, not as a speculative source of income. Property taxes goes down if your assessed value is lower as does your insurance rate.

2) Young people as they can afford to buy a home and start building equity

3) The economy as your money isn’t tied up mainly in housing and you can afford to buy other things/live life. Lower cost to live (which housing is the most expensive part of that equation) means you can live a better life on a lower income.

Where I live we had a major housing crash in the 90s. The main employer went from employing 12,000 well paid employees to 4,000. The city shrank population wise from about 84k to 64k overnight. Yes it hurt for a few years, but the net result was a very cheap housing market which allowed even minimum wage workers to afford to own a house for decades afterwards.

The prices have only gone up now as the population has basically leveled out to where it was at the peak. Still one of the most affordable places to live in the country (about 300k-400k for a 1000-1200sqft detached home in decent shape), but the prices were even lower a few years ago (I paid 167k for a detached 1200sq/ft home in 2018).

Don’t be afraid of a housing crash. The media wants you to be afraid of it because they are funded by those who have a lot to lose from it. Cheap housing means excellent living.

 

[YZT580]

Women are not having kids.

With 1.3 children per women, and 2.1 needed for replacement level, you don't need a enormous death rate. You just need a regular death rate.

1.3 does not create a shrinkage in isolation. We had half a million people come into the country last year on top of students and on top of the several hundred thousand illegals or about to become illegals. Those figures are more than enough to compensate for the low birth rate. So why are so many people leaving and are they professionals, white collar workers, skilled labourers?