[GT] Canada Election 2025

[indes]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

We should be looking for leaders who look out for the little guys regardless of their job title. Will he act in the interests of big business as PM? You can’t be absolutely sure he won’t, so keep him honest. Don’t defend him like Johnny Deploranov.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I want my PM to be the best candidate for the job. Not the one who got fired for costing his company millions because he was looking out for the little guy. He's been hired for some extremely prominent positions and I like to think that's because he's an incredibly capable, high agency, intelligent human being. Him doing the best he can in those roles should only point to him doing the best he can in his new role.

We can say "what if he isn't looking out for us?" But that's not based on anything. His history shows he looks out for the interests he's been hired/appointed to look out for at the banks and at Brookfield. He could turn around and become a corporate shill but that's just baseless speculation and he would be just as likely to become a Maple Maga.

[Matty81]

It's pretty surprising to me how long this is taking. I read there are only 880 ballots they needed to count in Terrebonne today and it's mid afternoon there already

[sa226]

I'm not holding my breath, but with special ballots in a number of very close riding still to be counted, a majority is still absolutely possible.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Under him as chair of the board. He wasn't CEO or anything. And how was it for personal gain?

I mean, because he was a shareholder and chair things that benefit the company benefit him.

If you prefer I could amend to "...for the corporate benefit of the company he was a shareholder and the chairman of".

[opendoor]

I wonder if Poilievre is going to have to move out of his house. Unlike Prime Minister, I don't believe you can be Leader of the Opposition without holding a seat in the House of Commons.

[Delthefunky]

I've never heard of Mark Carney before 2 months ago when he went on The Daily Show. Since then all I've heard is how intelligent and capable he is. Whether that's true or not, we'll find out, but I don't think the other candidates were any better, so I'm happy to roll the dice.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

It's insane to me that people are criticizing Carney for being good at his job before he entered politics

Only stupid lemmings for PP and Singh would ever criticize him for that. lol

What a stupid talking point. Downinflames prob has Brookfield in his mutual funds just like half the Conservative leadership.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

I've never heard of Mark Carney before 2 months ago when he went on The Daily Show. Since then all I've heard is how intelligent and capable he is. Whether that's true or not, we'll find out, but I don't think the other candidates were any better, so I'm happy to roll the dice.

What the? Unless you are under 18 years old how can you not have heard of him. lol Did you not have a mortgage or a secure line of credit from 2008-2013?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

I have a couple take aways here, the first being that the conservatives did campaign on multiple topics which were proportionally more beneficial for the west (carbon tax scrapping, pipelines to the east) before the liberals did the same. To say they did not try for the Albertan vote seems misguided, a read through the conservative platform would prove that wrong.

https://www.clearbluemarkets.com/kno...rm?hs_amp=true

And secondly, is your issue with the Conservative Party overlooking AB or is it every party overlooking AB due to representation levels? The tone I took from your post points to the latter. We as Albertans aren’t the big electoral fish in Canada, never have been, but thanks to the Cheeto In Command the rest of Canada is now warming up to policy which would benefit us in a major way. Luckily politicians of both LPC and CPC seem to understand that, and I hope we can all benefit from it.

That isn't exclusively a western or Albertan issue; you can find a plurality of Canadians coast-to-coast who thought we should ditch the carbon tax (whether it was wholesale or just the part we could actually get rid of without kneecapping trade). But the point is that by and large, AB's votes aren't available to earn. CPC can say whatever and AB will eat it up, doesn't even matter how much of the stuff in their platform they would have had to abandon or dramatically alter due to the fact that at least some of it isn't possible.

My issue is with every party overlooking AB, but only a small portion of that is down to representation, and a much bigger part is because we Always. Fuсking. Vote. Blue. You can't earn Alberta's votes because they aren't available. As Bring_Back_Shantz succinctly put it, Alberta continues to show that -- as an electorate -- it has no idea how to influence federal politics.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Most of those tax moves were done before his time as chair. And the shareholders included the Ontario Teachers Pension as one of the largest.

Anyway, To anyone who actually wants to know what's going on here:

BAM (not Carney himself) has investment funds (think ETFs) that people buy into and sell out of like a stock

The fund then spreads that money across a range of different investments

When BAM gains money from these investments, it would 'normally' (not usually) be taxed on the gains at this point (likely upwards of 30% if it was based in Canada)

When Canadians want to sell their stake in the fund, they also normally have to pay capital gains tax in Canada - this is what's being referred to as potential 'double taxation'

Non-canadians invested in the fund would also be subject to the taxation at the fund level as well as whatever applicable capital gains tax for where they're from

This means that investors would end up getting significantly less returns than they would by investing in assets directly

It also means that gains that would normally be exempt (eg pension funds, TFSAs, RRSPs, etc) would end up being subject to significant taxes

When non tax-exempt entities cash out on gains from the fund, they still have to pay taxes wherever they're based, whether that's in Canada or elsewhere

So, the result of the funds being based in Bermuda is essentially that investing in the fund becomes more or less equal with investing in the assets directly instead of being strictly worse due to the taxation at both levels.

If they didn't do something like this, not only would it be uncompetitive with other investment funds - it probably wouldn't make sense to invest in at all.

This is so patently incorrect. Where did you get your information?

Brookfield doesn't run ETFs like a typical mutual fund company. It manages private funds and partnerships across real estate, infrastructure, and renewable energy — primarily for institutions and large investors. These vehicles operate differently from public ETFs and mutual funds like the ones you think you are referring to...

Brookfield actually runs a lot of flow through vehicles so technically the fund itself doesn’t pay income tax in Canada. nstead, income or gains are passed through and taxed directly in the hands of investors. So, there's only one level of taxation — not two.

Anyway, I think this point is stupid from a political stand point. You would be an idiot not to take advantage of tax planning which is perfectly legal. No business is in the business of paying taxes and this was certainly above board. My company has a very complex tax structure that saves us hundreds of millions. If you didn't do it, you would be an idiot.

[Delthefunky]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

What the? Unless you are under 18 years old how can you not have heard of him. lol Did you not have a mortgage or a secure line of credit from 2008-2013?

No.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

We should be looking for leaders who look out for the little guys regardless of their job title. Will he act in the interests of big business as PM? You can’t be absolutely sure he won’t, so keep him honest. Don’t defend him like Johnny Deploranov.

I hope you don't buy RRSPs or RESPs. You are RIPPING off Canada if you do!!! hahahahaha

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

No.

Well enjoy him. He is a good one.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Leondros

This is so patently incorrect. Where did you get your information?

Brookfield doesn't run ETFs like a typical mutual fund company. It manages private funds and partnerships across real estate, infrastructure, and renewable energy — primarily for institutions and large investors. These vehicles operate differently from public ETFs and mutual funds like the ones you think you are referring to...

Brookfield actually runs a lot of flow through vehicles so technically the fund itself doesn’t pay income tax in Canada. nstead, income or gains are passed through and taxed directly in the hands of investors. So, there's only one level of taxation — not two.

Anyway, I think this point is stupid from a political stand point. You would be an idiot not to take advantage of tax planning which is perfectly legal. No business is in the business of paying taxes and this was certainly above board. My company has a very complex tax structure that saves us hundreds of millions. If you didn't do it, you would be an idiot.

Imo moving your business and its jobs to the US is different than tax planning.

[Johnny Makarov]

Libs up to 169 now! They take one away from the Bloq in the last poll!

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Imo moving your business and its jobs to the US is different than tax planning.

Im speaking about the tax haven/structuring that everyone is going on about. Not the redomicile - which is a form a tax planning and corporate structuring/strategy.

[All In Good Time]

Disgusted at all the separatists crybabies stomping their feet now
Even read one moron stating that the west should have more seats than the east because of transfer payments
Idiots

[SuperMatt18]

I do think that if you keep everything the same but Carney is leader of the conservatives and PP is the leader of the Liberals that this thing wouldn't have even been close.

I think public opinion was clearly Carney >>>> PP > Trudeau - so once Trudeau stepped down and Carney stepped in any of those on the fence voters that would have flipped from Liberal to Conservative changed their mind and voted Liberal again.

In the end their adamant push for Trudeau to step down is probably what cost the Conservatives this election.

Originally Posted by All In Good Time

Disgusted at all the separatists crybabies stomping their feet now
Even read one moron stating that the west should have more seats than the east because of transfer payments
Idiots

The part that's always surprising to me is how these things get a foot hold in certain parts of the population. Like I get older people that probably have that view, and even certain trades or people that work in oil and gas.

But I see a lot of well educated people that are under 40 in my timeline sharing that view today (a couple lawyers and nurses) and wondering how they could ever think that separating would actually be a good idea.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I do think that if you keep everything the same but Carney is leader of the conservatives and PP is the leader of the Liberals that this thing wouldn't have even been close.

I think public opinion was clearly Carney >>>> PP > Trudeau - so once Trudeau stepped down and Carney stepped in any of those on the fence voters that would have flipped from Liberal to Conservative changed their mind and voted Liberal again.

In the end their adamant push for Trudeau to step down is probably what cost the Conservatives this election.



The part that's always surprising to me is how these things get a foot hold in certain parts of the population. Like I get older people that probably have that view, and even certain trades or people that work in oil and gas.

But I see a lot of well educated people that are under 40 in my timeline sharing that view today (a couple lawyers and nurses) and wondering how they could ever think that separating would actually be a good idea.

Actually I think it's Carney>>>>>Something>Trudeau. I think even Conservatives hate PP. He's everything that base despises. A career politician trying to pretend he's not a dweeb.

[Delthefunky]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I do think that if you keep everything the same but Carney is leader of the conservatives and PP is the leader of the Liberals that this thing wouldn't have even been close.

I think public opinion was clearly Carney >>>> PP > Trudeau - so once Trudeau stepped down and Carney stepped in any of those on the fence voters that would have flipped from Liberal to Conservative changed their mind and voted Liberal again.

In the end their adamant push for Trudeau to step down is probably what cost the Conservatives this election.



The part that's always surprising to me is how these things get a foot hold in certain parts of the population. Like I get older people that probably have that view, and even certain trades or people that work in oil and gas.

But I see a lot of well educated people that are under 40 in my timeline sharing that view today (a couple lawyers and nurses) and wondering how they could ever think that separating would actually be a good idea.

It feels like I'm surrounded by conservative voters in BC, I wonder if they're just that much louder with their F Trudeau bumper stickers and flags etc.

Several people I follow on X are oil and gas analysts and stock holders. You would think we just became Azerbaijan by their despicable foot stomping response -- they're quite literally millionaires with 0 worries in the grand scheme, unlike most of the rest of Canadians.