Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You really are coming across as a bit of a dick lately

Nice of Fuzz to thank your post, while saying he isn’t my AI bitch.

But anyways, maybe you can answer the question that Fuzz won’t.

Do you have a source or do you agree that Canada is performing poorly economically relative to our peers?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I hate engaging with you. You know exactly what I mean and just like to be difficult on a message board. it's like interacting with a child.

I'll make it more clear then. By removing him from the forefront of the file due to his position as minister they are potentially taking away the perception that he is involved while the reality is he will continue to pull the strings from behind the curtain.

I wont respond to anything you send back because I've put you on ignore, I've stated multiple times I'm fairly centrist thinking but I don't think your opinions offer any value so am not longer interested in reading them.

I’d say it’s the opposite,

He needs to be moved out of a file he failed to manage but needs to be kept in government for political reasons.

Carney has already stated his Carbon tax position so if you want to disagree with that I think that is the correct avenue rather than speculating if Guilbert still has power.

[MacDaddy77]

^ I'm talking optics to voting public of him not being Environmental Minster not the political importance to Guilbert being in the LPC party in some capacity.

It's not speculating, he does have power. Having Guilbert holds the hardline environmentalists to the party, your statement on his political importance indicates you agree?

[Sylvanfan]

Is it Guilbeault's ideals or capabilities that people despise?

I do think he's a bit extreme and I'm not crazy about him or Gerald Butts. It's pretty clear that Carney's ideals very much align with the environmental and climate objectives similar to the current Liberals from the past 9 years.

That said...would you rather have that...or something more like whats happening in the U.S. right now. I know which way I'd rather caution towards.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Fantastic news on the Cabinet size but unfortunately with that it sounds like Steven Guilbeault is going to be doing more work. Come on Carney, you can do better than that.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cab...tion-1.7482507

Yup, when environmental zealot himself is part of your cabinet, my vote is gone. Delusional thinking from a complete moron.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1900204434434703372

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yup, when environmental zealot himself is part of your cabinet, my vote is gone. Delusional thinking from a complete moron.

Let's be real - did Carney and the Liberals ever have your vote?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Is it Guilbeault's ideals or capabilities that people despise?

I do think he's a bit extreme and I'm not crazy about him or Gerald Butts. It's pretty clear that Carney's ideals very much align with the environmental and climate objectives similar to the current Liberals from the past 9 years.

That said...would you rather have that...or something more like whats happening in the U.S. right now. I know which way I'd rather caution towards.

There are 100% more competent non-tainted people to fill the cabinet roles.

Even people from Quebec.

The fact that these clowns are going to have any part of the new government going forward just shows that Carney is more of the same.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Torture

Let's be real - did Carney and the Liberals ever have your vote?

If he would repeal bill C-69 and support oil & gas expansion I would 100% vote Liberal.

[Azure]

I guess its an encouraging start, but better this useless twit gets turfed completely.

Former environmental activist Steven Guilbeault will have to mourn the Environment and Climate Change portfolio, Radio-Canada learned. He will be given other responsibilities in Mark Carney's Council of Ministers.

According to our information, the Minister will end up with various dossiers on his own. However, it will no longer be the face of the fight against climate change. Steven Guilbeault heard the news this week.

It is not yet known who will replace him in his functions at the Environment.

Canada’s next Prime Minister seems to want to make a clear break with the Trudeau era and its private carbon pricing policy, of which Steven Guilbeault was one of the standard-bearers.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle...nnement-carney

[MacDaddy77]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Is it Guilbeault's ideals or capabilities that people despise?

I do think he's a bit extreme and I'm not crazy about him or Gerald Butts. It's pretty clear that Carney's ideals very much align with the environmental and climate objectives similar to the current Liberals from the past 9 years.

That said...would you rather have that...or something more like whats happening in the U.S. right now. I know which way I'd rather caution towards.

I personally want someone in the middle that would grow the economic benefit Canada has to offer from all aspects, O&G, Mines and Metals, Hydro, Potash etc to make housing affordable, support healthcare and other social programs, however also be able to work with provinces on development of alternative sources of energy and be a leader in environmental policy and actually follow through on promises made to our indigenous population to deliver basic quality of life necessities like clean water.

I would like to see internal use of natural Gas by all cities moving to NG fleet vehicles and buses to offset the carbon footprint that each household emits by having to have a gas/diesel vehicle.

I'd like to see export pipeline capacity but I'd also like to see refinery capacity built in Sask/AB, I'd like to see the NG moratorium for NG development taken off NB & NS,

I want a Government that will work for the Country, not for votes and their own interests. I'm a realist enough to realize this wont happen in my lifetime but the potential is there.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Torture

Let's be real - did Carney and the Liberals ever have your vote?

LOL. Bootlickers' "vote" would have been gone if he saw that Carney wore a pair of shoes over $150.

Just like how my "vote" for Danielle Smith would be gone... hahahaha

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Nice of Fuzz to thank your post, while saying he isn’t my AI bitch.

But anyways, maybe you can answer the question that Fuzz won’t.

Do you have a source or do you agree that Canada is performing poorly economically relative to our peers?

Since 2020 GDP growth among the G7 nations have been

USA 37%
Canada 33%
UK 33%
Italy 25%
France 20%
Germany 20%
Japan -19%

So yes, while our GDP/capita has been lagging behind due to the drastic increase in population through the Liberal immigration policies, GDP growth as a whole has only lagged behind the US, which I would argue is not a peer as much as the rest of the countries are.

I think that puts us in pretty safe territory in being very comparable to our peers, not lagging behind at all.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ry-gdp-levels/

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Since 2020 GDP growth among the G7 nations have been

USA 37%
Canada 33%
UK 33%
Italy 25%
France 20%
Germany 20%
Japan -19%

So yes, while our GDP/capita has been lagging behind due to the drastic increase in population through the Liberal immigration policies, GDP growth as a whole has only lagged behind the US, which I would argue is not a peer as much as the rest of the countries are.

I think that puts us in pretty safe territory in being very comparable to our peers, not lagging behind at all.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ry-gdp-levels/

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comm...e-ottawas-spin

Growth in gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the economy annually, is one of the most frequently cited indicators of Canada’s economic performance. Journalists, politicians and analysts often compare various measures of Canada’s total GDP growth to other countries, or to Canada’s past performance, to assess the health of the economy and living standards. However, this statistic is misleading as a measure of living standards when population growth rates vary greatly across countries or over time.

Federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, for example, recently boasted that Canada had experienced the “strongest economic growth in the G7” in 2022. Although the Trudeau government often uses international comparisons on aggregate GDP growth as evidence of economic success, it’s not the first to do so. In 2015, then-prime minister Stephen Harper said Canada’s GDP growth was “head and shoulders above all our G7 partners over the long term.”

Unfortunately, such statements do more to obscure public understanding of Canada’s economic performance than enlighten it. In reality, aggregate GDP growth statistics are not driven by productivity improvements and do not reflect rising living standards. Instead, they’re primarily the result of differences in population and labour force growth. In other words, they aren’t primarily the result of Canadians becoming better at producing goods and services (i.e. productivity) and thus generating more income for their families. Instead, they primarily reflect the fact that there are simply more people working, which increases the total amount of goods and services produced but doesn’t necessarily translate into increased living standards.

Let’s look at the numbers. Canada’s annual average GDP growth (with no adjustment for population) from 2000 to 2023 was the second-highest in the G7 at 1.8 per cent, just behind the United States at 1.9 per cent. That sounds good, until you make a simple adjustment for population changes by comparing GDP per person. Then a completely different story emerges.

Canada’s inflation-adjusted per-person annual economic growth rate (0.7 per cent) is meaningfully worse than the G7 average (1.0 per cent) over this same period. The gap with the U.S. (1.2 per cent) is even larger. Only Italy performed worse than Canada.

The statistics you posted are misleading when they don’t account for population growth. As pointed out, one country could have a 1% population increase while another could have a 25% population increase over a given period of time.

Canada has had a very poor record compared to peer countries. You don’t even have to compare us to the US (they are way, way ahead of us).

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comm...e-ottawas-spin



The statistics you posted are misleading when they don’t account for population growth. As pointed out, one country could have a 1% population increase while another could have a 25% population increase over a given period of time.

Canada has had a very poor record compared to peer countries. You don’t even have to compare us to the US (they are way, way ahead of us).

But posting Frasier Institute links is legit? Who runs that again? What's' their agenda?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by aaronck

But posting Frasier Institute links is legit? Who runs that again? What's' their agenda?

I also posted a CBC article on it.

[StickMan]

"The big five banks in Canada, as well as banks in the U.S. abandoned Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg’s GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero). So what he failed to do there he now will attempt to do to Canada and Canadians will pay the price. Canada already has the lowest GDP in the G7. His climate zealotry quest will cost Canadians trillions."

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ros...s-to-defund-it

I don't believe Carney can shut off the environmental extremist part of his brain and make decisions that are best for Canada. The man has too much baggage and conflicts of interest to be a pm.

I mean he founded this
https://www.gfanzero.com/about/

There is a reason why Guilbeau endorses him.

Are we supposed to believe Carney is into building pipelines and LNG facilities etc. When at the same time he wants half the existing ones gone by 2030 and the rest soon after.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by MacDaddy77

I hate engaging with you. You know exactly what I mean and just like to be difficult on a message board. it's like interacting with a child.

I'll make it more clear then. By removing him from the forefront of the file due to his position as minister they are potentially taking away the perception that he is involved while the reality is he will continue to pull the strings from behind the curtain.

I wont respond to anything you send back because I've put you on ignore, I've stated multiple times I'm fairly centrist thinking but I don't think your opinions offer any value so am not longer interested in reading them.

No, I don’t know what you mean, and your follow-ups to this post don’t convey a logically sound position. He “has power”… ok, what power? Who is being hoodwinked? What strings is he pulling from “behind the curtain” and why do you actually believe that?

Enjoyed you following up “it’s like interacting with a child” by throwing a temper tantrum and doing the message board equivalent of plugging your ears and saying “I’m not listening!”, though. Always entertaining watching someone with minimal self awareness embarrass themselves.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/comm...e-ottawas-spin



The statistics you posted are misleading when they don’t account for population growth. As pointed out, one country could have a 1% population increase while another could have a 25% population increase over a given period of time.

Canada has had a very poor record compared to peer countries. You don’t even have to compare us to the US (they are way, way ahead of us).

GDP per capita is just useless though. It's politically expedient to use that to say how terrible Canada is, but means nothing in the grad scheme. It's like me sitting at a table with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and someone talking about the average net worth of that group as though it is useful information.

And yes, in case you're wondering, when the Liberals talk about how low our debt is on a per capita basis compared with the rest of the G7 it's also meaningless. Who cares what that figure looks like?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Since 2020 GDP growth among the G7 nations have been

USA 37%
Canada 33%
UK 33%
Italy 25%
France 20%
Germany 20%
Japan -19%

So yes, while our GDP/capita has been lagging behind due to the drastic increase in population through the Liberal immigration policies, GDP growth as a whole has only lagged behind the US, which I would argue is not a peer as much as the rest of the countries are.

I think that puts us in pretty safe territory in being very comparable to our peers, not lagging behind at all.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ry-gdp-levels/

It's also worth noting that most peer countries that do have higher per capita growth are essentially buying that growth through government deficits. Check out the correlation between GDP per capita growth over the last couple of years and the deficit-to-GDP ratio:




So I suppose Canada could have thrown borrowed money around or used deficits to fund tax cuts that might generate some economic growth, but it would have negatively impacted our long-term position. Like, is 2-3% growth particularly impressive when your government has to borrow 5-7% of GDP every year to create the conditions for that growth?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by StickMan

"The big five banks in Canada, as well as banks in the U.S. abandoned Mark Carney and Michael Bloomberg’s GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero). So what he failed to do there he now will attempt to do to Canada and Canadians will pay the price. Canada already has the lowest GDP in the G7. His climate zealotry quest will cost Canadians trillions."

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ros...s-to-defund-it

I don't believe Carney can shut off the environmental extremist part of his brain and make decisions that are best for Canada. The man has too much baggage and conflicts of interest to be a pm.

I mean he founded this
https://www.gfanzero.com/about/

There is a reason why Guilbeau endorses him.

Are we supposed to believe Carney is into building pipelines and LNG facilities etc. When at the same time he wants half the existing ones gone by 2030 and the rest soon after.

Yeah but

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except Carney has supported and invested in more pipelines over his career than any other candidate or party leader.