Damien Kurek: The Liberal plan to silence the House of Commons | National Post - "the Liberals did not win a majority mandate. They also didn’t pick up any new seats in the recent by-elections; they held on to what they had after two high-profile resignations and one result invalidation. Instead of earning a parliamentary majority, or even more importantly, respecting the makeup of the House of Commons that Canadians elected, the prime minister cobbled a majority together. This was only possible because of the five floor-crossers who handed Carney this power. These MPs didn’t just commit an act of disloyalty to what their constituents voted for; they facilitated a profound consolidation of power into the hands of the prime minister and backroom power brokers. This majority commits a democratic sin far graver than what Jagmeet Singh ever managed, even with his coalition agreement with former prime minister Justin Trudeau, because a majority government has the ability to force changes to the rules, known as the standing orders, of the House of Commons — and as a result change the composition of committees. Committees are structured based on the makeup of the House of Commons after an election, something carefully negotiated and agreed upon by all parties. For all the years the former NDP leader propped up the previous Liberal government, he at least allowed his NDP caucus to perform the constitutionally essential work of holding the government accountable at the committee level by refusing to give Liberals the majority of the seats. Right now, most committees have five seats for the Liberals, with four for the Conservatives and one for the Bloc Québécois; the NDP and Greens, not having official party status in the House Commons, do not have an assigned seat on standing committees. The Liberals are now signalling that they plan to unilaterally rework the structure. By securing a majority on committees, the Liberals would be weaponizing a system of accountability to silence their opponents. Committees may not get the same airtime as question period and confidence votes, but they are powerful agents of Parliament. They dictate what studies happen and which witnesses testify; they can demand documents and make amendments to legislation, among other powers. Virtually every headline about the federal government, both good and bad, from accomplishments to scandals, involves committee work at some point. Changing the makeup is a massive, unchecked shift of power away from what Canadians voted for and directly contradicts the prime minister’s lofty claims of unity and wanting to work together. Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon, who routinely takes to the microphones in the press gallery to complain about the opposition, highlights the massive divide between what Liberal partisans say and what they do. Wasting no time making the comments on Wednesday before the new Liberal MPs elected in by-elections were even sworn in, MacKinnon told reporters that he thought it to be “pretty generally accepted” that committee composition should reflect the seats held by the parties in the House of Commons. But the fact is this Parliament has been relatively productive. To see this you have to look past question period: opposition parties have worked with the government to pass the “Building Canada” Bill C-5, allow votes on budget items, push forward affordability and crime-fighting measures, and constructively amend Liberal bills. Now, don’t mistake these examples as there not being serious disagreement and debate, but despite a light legislative calendar and the prime minister being notably absent from House proceedings in comparison to his predecessors, he cannot claim that the opposition has stalled his agenda. Canadians did elect the Liberals led by Mark Carney, but likewise, they elected an opposition to hold him to account. Our nation expects MPs to respect that, and committees are one of the places where that respect needs to be realized. Despite the proclamations, it is clear that the prime minister and the Liberals don’t want a unity government; they just want to govern without scrutiny, free of any opposition. This cobbled-together majority is about more than just confidence votes; it’s about whether the balance of power remains in the hands of the people of Canada, or Liberal insiders."
Meme - Daniel Foch: "Young Canadians keep getting more miserable. Old Canadians keep getting happier. Data from world happiness report: worldhappiness.report"
"A Generational Split in Happiness in Canada
*Under 30 steadily deteriorating from 2010 to 2026*
*Age 60+ starting from the same place as under 30 in 2012 and continually rising*"
Elbows up, indeed. When you know who votes and who doesn't
The Food Professor on X - "La Presse ended my 25-year column, which I wrote for free, for saying out loud what many Canadians are thinking quietly. Subsidies given to private media are a partisan issue, fostering more editorial bias. And now, Ottawa wants to give the media another $6 billion. I’m not surprised." (aka "Censorship and the chilling impact on free speech of government media subsidies")
What a fascist, criticising the media
Meme - "Harper says Canada's difficulties can't all be blamed on Trump in gala speech"
Keep Positive And Vote Liberal: "We agree, that they can also be blamed on you and the rest of your conservative minions, who have stonewalled progress and refused cooperation for the good of the country for the last 10 years......"
"It seems that liberals just like to blame Harper or trump for all the problems they created themselves."
"explain to me how the conservatives have "stonewalled" anything. The Liberals have either had a majority or the NDP voting in step with them at every instance."
"Who was it that refused to move onto the bail reform bill 19 times before finally agreeing on the 20th request?"
Left wing cope - the party that hasn't been in power for over a decade is to blame for the mess the country is in. Of course, the moment the Liberals lose power, they cannot be responsible for anything and it'll all be on the current government
Unapologetically Albertan | Facebook - "I have a question for anyone who has voted Liberal in the past federal election. Respectfully, I’m truly trying to understand the logic behind this one, if someone would be able to politely explain it please I’d be very appreciative. More towards those who despise Trump with unbreakable conviction. Trump has said two distinct things with two very different reactions and I’m curious how to square this circle, so to say. One of them being : “…Then maybe Canada should become the 51st state.” and the second one being “…I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a liberal and maybe they’re going to win…" Now here’s my question: why such a difference in reaction from one to the other? Trump saying we should become part of the states (jokingly or not, there isn’t any evidence of this actually happening), and it’s all “nope, never gonna happen, elbows up, hashtag Team Canada” etc. But when he says he’d prefer a Liberal government because they’re “easier to deal with” it’s all “makes sense, Trump prefers a Liberal government and so do I”. If your immediate response to anything Trump says or does is to do or think the opposite, why would you still vote Liberal, seeing as that’s what he wanted? I am not simply looking for a “gotcha moment” or trying to tear anyone down here. I’ve been trying to figure this out for some time now and I’d really appreciate some honest & respectful input from those who may think differently than I do. I hope to open up a dialogue between people who think differently, not just to throw insults and be destructive. Disagreement doesn’t have to mean disrespect. Thank you for reading."
Jeff Berube on X - "Here we go! The fix is in. They’re going to use your pension money to invest in Canada’s failing state when you wouldn’t do so on your own. The vehicle? None other than our very own sovereign debt fund. First they got the media to push the Global Infrastructure Investment Association’s (GIIA) Pulse Survey that found “Canada to be the most attractive destination for infrastructure investment.” Survey was off course anonymous. But… Surprise! Surprise! the CPP Investment fund is one of the founding members of the GIIA along with our dear friends at Brookfield. This is the next step. If anyone asks, they can justify their investment decision by pointing to the survey they fabricated themselves. This is how they’re going to pillage the fund and rape Canadians out of their own money. I can already hear François Philippe Champagne’s nasally voice: “Mister Speaker. We’re standing up for Canadians. Why don’t the conservatives want to invest in Canadians?” Absolute clown show. If you’re an Albertan federalist, I need you to comment below and explain to me how you justify wanting to remain in this truly corrupted country."
Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 on X - "Two polls on the same day:
-Abacus - Carney is surging, and Canadians feel Canada is on the right track.
-Blacklocks leak of an internal government poll: trust in Canada's democratic institutions in a freefall.
Try to circle that square."
Dan Taylor | Facebook - "People are being told the wrong story about parole in Canada, and it keeps getting repeated like fact. There’s something off in how parole gets talked about in Canada right now. You keep hearing claims that the system is “too soft” and that it’s a recent Liberal failure. But the framework being criticized didn’t start there. It comes from the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992), passed under Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government. That legislation built the modern parole system:
It established statutory release rules
It set the structure for conditional supervision
It formalized how risk is assessed and managed
It created the framework for reintegration into the community
In other words, the system people are arguing about today is the system that was designed and implemented under a Conservative government. And it wasn’t designed to be “soft.” It was built on a correctional principle that still holds today: managed, gradual release reduces reoffending more effectively than sudden release at sentence expiry with no supervision or supports. That’s not a partisan talking point, it’s the foundation of modern corrections policy. Yes, governments of all stripes have adjusted parts of the system over time. But the core architecture hasn’t changed. The structure being criticized today is largely the one created in 1992. So if the argument is that the system needs reform, that’s fair. Say it clearly:
Longer incarceration?
Fewer releases?
Different risk thresholds?
Those are legitimate policy debates, with real consequences for public safety, prison capacity, and recidivism. But we don’t need to rewrite history to have them. The parole system Canada uses today didn’t appear out of nowhere. It was built here, decades ago, by a Conservative government."
The chutzpah is amazing. This is even better than blaming Harper
Comment: "Sorry but this misses the point entirely of what people have major issues with. It is with the bail system and criminals offending and being released before trial. THAT is the problem we have today. 2019 (Bill C-75): This legislation was a significant modernization that encouraged a "principle of restraint" in bail, directing courts to impose the least restrictive conditions."
Federal deficit projected to soar to $92B this year: 'Unfair to pass these burdens on,' C.D. Howe Institute says - The report also forecasts deficits of more than $77 billion a year over the next four years : r/CanadianConservative - "Chrystia Freeland in December: “A 62 billion dollar deficit is too egregious, we can’t continue this fiscal mismanagement anymore.”
Freeland now: crickets"
Quebec's $129-billion equalization bonanza idiocy finally sinks in | Calgary Herald - " Quebec has received $129.9 billion in equalization payments in the past 10 years. Even Ontario receives $576 million this year and $546 million next year; preposterous handouts to Canada’s largest economy by far. Equalization began in 1957. Alberta has reaped not a single penny since 1965. That was the one and only payment in the past 60 years. Saskatchewan and B.C. have received no payments for 15 years. Smith demands that the four big provinces — B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec — all receive the same per-capita payments. She’s not saying that genuine have-not provinces should be denied, especially in Atlantic Canada. But she points out the farce of huge payments to provinces with big, wealth-generating economies. And now, a new Angus Reid poll shows a strikingly high level of support for Smith’s idea. Asked if they agree with her proposal, 60 per cent said yes. Only 19 per cent are opposed. Twenty-one per cent are unsure. That’s remarkable. Majority support for reforming equalization is finally afoot in Canada. Equalization was designed as a way for all provinces to provide roughly similar levels of service for their citizens. It has become a payoff system for keeping Quebec in Canada; and for some, an irritant that could drive Alberta out. This allows successive Quebec governments to suppress development and cap resource prices, to keep the money flowing. It’s all about fiscal capacity. Quebec has some neat tricks for keeping its own capacity artificially low. Because of the equalization cushion, the Quebec National Assembly felt free to pass a resolution banning new oil or gas pipelines through the province. None of this stops the insults. Bloc Quebecois Leader Yves-Francois Blanchet calls Canada an “artificial country” (which is nonetheless free to supply Quebec with real western wealth). He says Alberta is a doomed petro-state. Alberta’s referendum on removing equalization from the Constitution passed with 62 per cent in 2021. The Trudeau Liberals had a constitutional obligation to respond, but simply ignored the vote... Newfoundland and Labrador challenged equalization in court. The case has since been joined by B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan... The poll also found 46 per cent support for ending the tanker ban off the B.C. north coast, and guaranteeing no export tax on Alberta’s resources. On both issues, the opposition was only 35 per cent, with significant percentages undecided. Sixty-four per cent of Canadians would back a guarantee of corridors and port access to the east and west coasts for oil and gas. It’s quite possible that national awareness of Alberta’s grievances with Ottawa hasn’t been this high since the 1980s. Polling was not so common in those days, but nobody could miss the uproar when Alberta reduced oil shipments to Ontario. They even noticed that in downtown Toronto."
Weird. Left wingers tell us that Alberta used to benefit from equalization, so it cannot complain about it today
Carney MPs Doly Begum and Salma Zahid pose in front of flags of the banned terror organization the Tamil Tigers : r/CanadianConservative
Too bad it only counts if you're PP leaving a trailer with the Diagolon logo on it
Canada's push to diversify trade away from U.S. seeing mixed results: report : r/Narcity - "American propoganda from an American site. Nothing to see"
"Narcity is Canadian, The original article is from The Canadian Press which is also Canadian owned. What American site are you referring to?"
"The Canadian Press referencing a report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce somehow is American propaganda..."
When you hate on the US and anything American to distract from your problems. Waving around outsiders as a bogeyman is a great way to pretend you haven't failed
Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 on X - "‼️CANADA JOINS EQUATORIAL GUINEA in an economic recession. Russia IS NOT even in a recession right now. Ukraine is being bombed and its not in a recession. Afghanistan is NOT in a recession."
Holly Doan on X - "New data confirms sharp generational divide between Canadians who rely on TV newscasts and those who get their news via internet. “Typical cable television subscriber in Canada is over 55” and “more likely to be satisfied with the news & information they receive than younger Canadians.” — @CRTCeng https://blacklocks.ca/cable-tv-audie nce-over-55/ #cdnpoli"
Older people are also more likely to support the Liberals, so.
Wayne Mathison | Facebook - "That’s the deeper problem. A healthy media culture is supposed to pressure power, question narratives, and reflect reality back to the public, even when it’s ugly. Instead, a lot of Canada’s legacy media behaves like a taxpayer-funded mood stabilizer for the managerial class. The boiled frog effect matters here. If living standards collapsed overnight, people would revolt. But if housing gets worse every year, taxes creep up every year, productivity drifts downward every year, and debt piles up quietly, many NPCs normalize decline because the screen keeps telling them everything is “stable,” “compassionate,” and “historic.” And the subsidy culture makes it worse. Once media, industries, and institutions depend on government money to survive, criticism becomes risky. You stop being a watchdog and slowly become a house pet. Not always through conspiracy either. Mostly incentives. The hand that feeds you gradually edits your worldview. That generational divide is real too. Older TV audiences often still assume the anchor is filtering information honestly. Younger people grew up online seeing competing narratives, raw footage, independent creators, leaks, long-form podcasts, and real-time corrections. Messier? Absolutely. But also harder to centrally manage. The danger is that people start mistaking narrative control for competence. But reality eventually punches through propaganda. Empty factories, unaffordable homes, weak productivity, collapsing trust, and rising dependency are hard to hide forever. Arithmetic is undefeated."
wealthmoose on X - "Well, Canada is officially in recession. That should increase Liberal support if I am understanding this country correctly."
Canada's cultural protection attempts are having the opposite effect - " We’re deeper in the arms of America now. And for that you can thank the people whose job it has been for half a century to keep us safe from the threat of the USA’s cultural imperialism. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) last month shifted the burden of sustaining the nation’s film, television, music and news industries to Donald Trump’s America. Its May 21 decision, the latest in a series designed to implement the goals of the Online Streaming Act, demands that major companies such as Netflix and Spotify dedicate 15 per cent of their Canadian revenues to certified Canadian content, Indigenous content and broadcast newsroom subsidies. In a previous, preliminary, decision, the CRTC set the contribution level from streamers at five per cent. While tripling down on streamers, the CRTC simultaneously decided to lower the burden on licensed domestic broadcasters to 25 per cent from between 30 to 45 per cent. Contributions by cable and satellite companies remain at five per cent of revenues. The outcome, given the growth in streaming and declines in traditional platforms, essentially surrenders Canada’s ability to fund its primary cultural industries domestically and permanently ties the survival of the $10 billion domestic film and television industry (half of which is certified Canadian content) to levies imposed on American companies. The lowering of Canadian spending obligations for domestic production will also mean Corus, Bell, TVA and Rogers will have more freedom to spend on the acquisition of low-cost American content and there will be fewer opportunities for Canadian entertainers and sports on domestic platforms. The system won’t be entirely akin to that of a 51st state, but it will be close... The decision is certainly inconsistent with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to lessen Canada’s economic dependence on the United States and become less subordinate to it. But it is entirely in line with the goals of the 2023 Online Streaming Act which was, as former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet ministers described it, all about getting “money from web giants.” The web giants, however, have never been real keen on that idea. A coalition of companies including Spotify, Amazon, Disney and Netflix challenged the initial five per cent decision in federal court. The outcome of that remains pending, after which another challenge regarding financial disclosure requirements may be heard. Chief among their complaints has been the imposition of an obligation to fund Canadian newsrooms. The logic for that remains elusive given that none of the streamers — music or video — delivers news and therefore competes for news consumers... “This burdensome framework unfairly targets global streamers with requirements that directly violate Canada’s obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). “This decision triples the cost of doing business in Canada and will spark even more inflation in the market, making further investment and innovation less attractive. For years, the MPA has consistently made clear that Canada’s Online Streaming Act is an unfair trade practice. We urge the Canadian government to reconsider this approach.”... What was needed from the start was a 21st-Century communications act centred on the internet, with an entirely new regulator focused on opportunities. But that train has left the station and the one the government chose to ride is now a broken down wreck. Every year, we grow deeper into the arms of America."
This Week in Canada: Your Anti-Racism Is Not Anti-Racist Enough - "Canada’s long-standing “CanCon” regime—short for Canadian content—which requires broadcasters and streaming platforms to privilege content deemed sufficiently Canadian by regulators. The problem is that no one really knows what Canadian content is anymore—and that ends up hurting domestic creators at the expense of legacy broadcasters. This is yet another piece of illiberal, Trudeau-era legislation that Carney seems determined to hang on to. Read more of my reporting on the Online Streaming Act. I still stand by something else I wrote at the time. Justin Bieber, who built his career on YouTube long before regulators took an interest in curating Canadian feeds, might never have been discovered if the Online Streaming Act existed back then. Maybe that’s a good thing, depending on your taste in music."
Brian Lilley on X - "BREAKING: Carney government will reverse horrible CRTC decision to charge streamers and Canadian broadcasters for fund to make Canadian content."
Here we go again. : r/TTC - "I will never understand why this was green lit before other more needed work. The to-scale ttc map just looks ridiculous with how long line 1 has become. Why not improve the existing GO service? It 100% feels like a metrolinx/OPC vote grab for the 905"
"This has been in the works for a quarter century, and by the time it opens it will have taken over 30 years from concept to opening. Three lines and two extensions have been funded and started construction between then and now. The TTC first studied this extension in 2001. It's been in York Region's official plan since 2002. The initial environmental assessment started in 2006, provincial funding was first promised in 2007 and it was first approved in principle by Toronto council in 2009. It's going to open in 2033. And you're complaining. LOL. Bad takes like this are why the Toronto subway system only added five stations over a period of 35 years."
"This has been planned for regional grrowth and connection between York Region and TTC for awhile, being even Province lead during McGuinty years. Here’s the whole environmental report on it. https://www.yrrtc.ca/PDFs/YSE/2009_ReportEnvironmentalProject.pdf Oddly enough a Scarborough and Etobicoke of the system would be more bigger TO scale than just the Richmond Hill extension. Richmond Hill Centre is the same distance form Union is UTSC."
Building public transit is bad when conservatives do it
