Goddess

They have a whole platform on this. The Liberals have brought in mass amounts of immigrants without increasing housing, schools, hospitals, jobs. They let 700 IRGC members into the country. Some of them "willfully" collaborate with China and India against the interests of Canadians. They brought in Bill C-75 that lets rapists and pedos out on the streets as soon as possible. They've strangled our resources and industry. The deficits and wasteful spending is skyrocketing. You seriously think any of this been "good for the country"?

It's so ignorant. How can you logically deny the fact that if you bring in millions of people in a short amount of time, but make no changes to hospital capacity, school capacity, housing, jobs, etc. - things are not going to go well, resources are going to run out? If a house has a max capacity of 10 people and you force 60 people to live in it.....what do you think is going to happen? And what if of those 60 people you bring in - 20 of them think women are garbage and that shi!ting on the sidewalk is perfectly acceptable. What do you think life is going to be like for the owners of that house that have poured their life savings into it? How pleased are they going to be to also have to financially support say, half of these people? It's astonishing to me that the Liberal Party and their supporters just cannot grasp this intellectually. And they all want it to continue. Just this one issue illustrates the level of "don't care" the Liberal party has for Canadians.

Immigration levels affect standard of living. And standard of living affects the overall health and happiness of a country. And Canada's standard of living has been dropping like a stone thrown in water.

I just posted a link that they want the spending to go up by 5X. I saw that figure in a lot of articles, but I just posted the one. In Canada, our Net Zero initiatives are consuming vast sums of money. And it's devastated parts of Europe. I watch this podcast a fair bit. This interview from a month ago, with an unfortunate title that includes the name Trump, but barely mentions him, it explains how Net Zero and anti-industry mania has tanked the UK economy and Germany, as well. I don't think you have made yourself aware of the what the actual results are of your climate fanaticism. You should not ignore that. I kind of think you will, though.

It should have changed years ago, but it didn't. I have no confidence that the Liberals will pivot on this. The Century Initiative guy who promotes the idea that Canada needs 100 million population before 2050 and that vetting is a waste of time and re-wrote our Immigration Policy to reflect those goals - was just hired by Carney. He also was advising Trudeau on immigration. Mass immigration will not slow down as long as the Libs are in power. They're not going to change anything.

Thank you for doing that. Not sure about that. I checked a lot of different sources and they all say the same thing. Climate spending will increase exponentially. And orgs like UN and WHO will require it. I'm also going by how much has been wasted and "disappeared" in the past, not so much future "investments". It seems the Net Zero crowd is losing support and I hope that continues before we're all broke. And dead.

L. Wayne Matheson: The Bureaucratic Deep Freeze: Are We Talking Ourselves to Death? Running a modern government sometimes feels like watching five people hold a meeting about a shovel while the snow keeps piling up outside. Everyone agrees the driveway needs clearing. Nobody actually picks up the shovel. Look at the gridlock creeping through modern Canadian institutions. Our institutions no longer reward solving problems. They reward managing the process around the problem. The old approach to a problem was blunt and direct. See a fire, grab a hose. The newer institutional approach looks very different. See a fire, schedule a meeting. Draft a report on the social drivers of combustion. Commission a consultant to examine the emotional effects of flames on the community. Release a statement acknowledging people’s concerns about heat. For a process-driven institution, the discussion itself becomes the accomplishment. The meeting counts as the work. Look around Canada and ask yourself if that description feels uncomfortably familiar. This used to be a country that built things. Railways. Dams. Energy projects. Entire cities carved out of forest and prairie. Today we hold consultations about the possibility of maybe building something later, provided the environmental assessment, regulatory review, indigenous consultation, climate alignment report, and equity audit all land perfectly on the same square inch of bureaucratic paper. The ArriveCan app is the perfect little parable of this mindset. In a sane world it should have been a simple coding job. A small team builds it in a weekend. Done. Instead it turned into a $60-million bureaucratic circus. A tiny firm received the contract, subcontracted it to others, who subcontracted it again, until the whole thing looked like a bureaucratic version of Russian nesting dolls. No one owned the result. Everyone owned a piece of the process. Money disappeared. Responsibility disappeared. The paperwork thrived. Helen Andrews argues that when institutions drift toward heavy process culture, empathy and safety become the dominant currencies. Risk becomes taboo. Decision becomes dangerous. So the system replaces action with consultation and courage with compliance. You could see this clearly during the pandemic. The task should have been straightforward: protect the vulnerable, keep the country functioning, and manage risk like adults. Instead we pursued the fantasy of zero risk. Whole sectors of society were frozen while officials held press conferences filled with soothing language and carefully calibrated concern. Safety theatre replaced problem solving. Watch a federal press conference today and you can almost feel the language doing gymnastics to avoid decisive statements. Everything becomes a study, a framework, a consultation, a dialogue. Meanwhile real problems sit outside the meeting room waiting for someone to act. Homeless encampments grow. Infrastructure projects stall. Housing shortages intensify. Yet the policy response often looks like another working group, another task force, another carefully moderated conversation about “lived experience.” Talking expands. Solutions shrink. It feels a bit like sitting at a red light in Winnipeg in February. Engine running. Gas burning. Wheels not moving. The radio cheerfully announces that officials are launching a new study into traffic congestion. The uncomfortable question here is not whether Adam Carolla’s terminology offends polite society. The real question is whether the diagnosis contains a grain of truth. Have our institutions drifted so far into consensus-seeking, risk-avoiding process that we have forgotten how to simply do the job?

If everyone thinks like you "No one else is voting for Conservatives so I won't either" then yes, the Conservatives will never get in. Which is my prediction. Canada will continue to circle the toilet bowl until we're all broke. The you Libs will blame it all on Harper. And Trump.

Heed Britain's stern warnings about Mark Carney | National Post The wide range of criticism included Carney’s left-wing politics, such as his championing of radical environmentalist policies like net-zero emissions, along with his opposition to Brexit, his political inexperience, dull personality, volatile temper, lousy track record at the Bank of England and more. Indeed, the dislike of Carney on both sides of the British political spectrum was rather remarkable to see. Now that the dust has settled and Carney is prime minister, what’s our country potentially in for? Two post-leadership analyses from our British cousins — one from the left, the other from the right — paint an equally gloomy picture of the future. As Lynn noted, “Over eight years at the Bank of England, Carney was at best an indifferent governor, and, at worse, a disappointing failure.“ Despite his huge salary of more than £600,000 a year, more than any of his predecessors had been paid, he seemed to have little feel for the role. The City quickly nick-named him ‘the unreliable boyfriend’ for his constant changes of direction on interest rates.” By the time Carney left the central bank, he had “created a mess which his successors have struggled to clear up. Inflation spiked up to a peak of 11.1 per cent in the U.K., compared to 5.2 per cent in France or eight per cent in Italy, hardly a country known for controlling prices effectively, largely because the bank had printed too much money.”

Not about racial hiring, but I believe this is a problem with finding a job: Ghost Jobs: The Economy Built on Positions That Don’t Exist by Peter Girnus 2.2 million job postings go nowhere every month. 4 in 10 companies admit the listings are fake. 7 in 10 call it morally acceptable. 85% percent still bring candidates in for interviews. I. The Application The listing looked real. It had a salary range, a team description, a bullet-pointed list of qualifications, and a paragraph about company culture. It had been posted three days ago. It asked for a cover letter. This is the experience millions of Americans share, and job seeker forums describe in nearly identical terms. You find a posting, read carefully, tailor your resume, write a cover letter, and submit everything through an online portal. The process takes 30 minutes to an hour, sometimes longer for writing samples or portfolios. Then you wait. The rejection arrives two days later, or two weeks later, or never. The email – if there is one – thanks you for your interest. It wishes you well in your future endeavors. It tells you the company was impressed by your qualifications. The company did not read your qualifications. In a significant number of cases, the company was never going to. The job was not real. It was a ghost. “The ghost job economy inflates hope and wastes job seekers’ time,” said Jasmine Escalera, career expert at MyPerfectResume, in a November 2025 report. The report, drawing on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, found that 30 percent of all US job postings never result in a hire. The rate has not moved in four years. It is not a downturn. It is a constant. The labor market calls these postings ghost jobs. The people who apply to them do not learn that they were ghosts until much later, if they learn at all. Most never find out. They assume they were not qualified. They revise their resumes. They apply to the next one. Some of those are ghosts, too. II. The Scale The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes a monthly report called the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS). In June 2025, it counted 7.4 million job openings across the United States. The same report counted 5.2 million hires. The difference is 2.2 million. That is 2.2 million reported job openings that did not result in any hires. Not that month. Not ever. According to MyPerfectResume’s analysis, this gap has held between 28 and 32 percent every single month since 2021. Through labor shortages. Through hiring surges. Through layoff waves. The gap does not respond to economic conditions because it is not caused by economic conditions. It is structural. The ratio of openings to hires peaked at 1.8 to 1 in March 2022 – nearly two posted jobs for every one person hired. By mid-2025, it had declined to about 1.4 to 1. The improvement is modest. The baseline is still broken. Revelio Labs, a workforce analytics firm, measured the same phenomenon from the employer side. Their data showed that the number of hires per job posting dropped from roughly 0.8 in 2019 to 0.4 by 2024. The conversion rate has halved over the past five years. By October 2024, fewer than half of job postings were filled within six months. In previous years, that figure had been 91 percent. “What used to be a reliable signal of labor demand has become noise,” said Lisa Simon, chief economist at Revelio Labs. The practice, she said, “softens the signal of what a job posting really means.” III. The Confession In May 2024, ResumeBuilder surveyed 650 hiring managers at companies across the United States. The question was direct: has your company posted a job listing for a role it did not intend to fill? Forty percent said yes. Three in 10 said they had a fake listing active at the time they took the survey. Not in the past. Right now. The listing was up. Applications were coming in, but no one was being hired. The reasons were institutional, not individual. Sixty percent said they posted fake roles to collect resumes – building what the industry calls a “talent pipeline” – with no immediate plan to hire. Others cited investor signaling: open positions on a careers page suggest growth, and growth attracts capital. Others used the applicant data for compensation benchmarking, measuring what candidates said they were willing to accept, and using the numbers to hold wages down internally. Seventy percent of companies that posted fake listings said the practice had boosted revenue. The most difficult number in the survey is this one: 85 percent of companies that contacted applicants for fake roles actually brought them in for interviews. These were not passive ghosts. They were active. Companies reached out to candidates, scheduled calls, arranged on-site visits, and conducted interviews for positions that would not be filled. The candidates are prepared. They took time off work. They bought clothes. They rehearsed answers. The process mimicked hiring in every respect except the part where someone gets hired. Seven in ten of the hiring managers surveyed called this practice “morally acceptable.” “The word ‘fake’ shouldn’t apply anywhere in the hiring process,” said Stacie Haller, chief career advisor at ResumeBuilder, in an interview with CBS News. “But here we are.” A separate survey cited by Forbes and LinkedIn, polling 1,641 hiring managers, found similar admission rates. The consistency across samples suggests the 40 percent figure is a floor. Companies willing to confess to posting fake jobs represent the fraction comfortable saying so out loud. The actual rate is almost certainly higher. IV. The Machine Ghost jobs do not persist because of a single bad company or a single reckless recruiter. They persist because every institution in the hiring supply chain profits from them. Job boards charge per posting. LinkedIn alone lists an estimated 1.7 million jobs in the United States at any given time. If 20 to 40 percent are ghosts – the range multiple analysts have estimated – that represents between 340,000 and 680,000 false listings on a single platform. Each one generates traffic. Traffic generates advertising revenue and premium subscription sales. There is no business model incentive to verify whether a listing corresponds to a real job, because the listing generates the same revenue either way. Applicant tracking systems – the software that receives, sorts, and filters resumes – sell throughput. How many applications processed, how fast, how cheaply? A system that screens 100,000 resumes for positions that do not exist performs identically, from a software perspective, to one that screens 100,000 resumes for positions that do. The ATS works either way. Its vendor gets paid either way. A widely repeated claim holds that 75 percent of resumes are rejected by applicant tracking systems before a human ever sees them. The statistic has appeared in Forbes, on LinkedIn, in career-coaching materials, and across hundreds of resume-advice articles. But according to an analysis by the recruitment firm Davron, the number is unverifiable. It traces to Preptel, a defunct resume distribution company that never published its methodology and no longer exists as a business. No peer-reviewed study has confirmed the figure. What is known is that ATS vendors do not publish their rejection rates. The actual percentage of resumes filtered out before human review is unknown. The 75 percent figure is not a fact. It is folklore – repeated so often that it has acquired the weight of one. It may be approximately right, or wildly wrong. No one outside the ATS industry can say, because the ATS industry does not disclose. What is measurable is the output of the overall system: employers report 7.4 million openings. They make 5.2 million hires. The rest disappears into a pipeline that processes applications, sends rejections, and produces no jobs. Recruiters call this pipeline “passive sourcing.” The Society for Human Resource Management publishes guidelines on “talent pipeline development.” LinkedIn Recruiter sells tools designed to build and maintain candidate pools. The language is strategic. The strategy is funded. The funding is justified at quarterly reviews. At no point does the chain require a hire. It requires a metric. Volume is a metric. Engagement is not. V. The Geography The ghost rate is not evenly distributed. It follows a pattern, and the pattern tells a story about which industries treat job postings as commitments and which treat them as advertisements. Forbes, analyzing BLS data by sector, found that government agencies posted the highest ghost rate: 60 percent. Six in ten federal job postings resulted in no hire. Government agencies are often required by law to post positions publicly, even when an internal candidate has already been selected, or the role is frozen pending budget approval that may never come. The posting satisfies a procedural requirement. The procedure does not require hiring anyone. Education and health services followed at 50 percent. The information sector – technology, media, telecommunications – posted a 48 percent ghost rate. Financial activities accounted for 44 percent. At the other end, construction and hospitality showed near-zero or negative ghost rates. In those sectors, more people were hired than positions posted. The dividing line is physical. Industries where the work is tangible and the need is immediate, fill what they post. Industries where the work is abstract, the timelines are long, and the metrics are flexible, post what they may never fill. The highest ghost rates correspond to sectors with the most complex hiring processes, the longest interview cycles, and the most approval layers. The bureaucracy is not a side effect. It is the mechanism. The more steps between posting and hiring, the more places a ghost can hide. VI. The Distortion Ghost jobs not only waste applicants' time. They corrupt the data that the federal government uses to measure the economy. JOLTS – the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey – is the primary tool the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to gauge labor demand. It counts what employers report. It has no mechanism to distinguish between a genuine opening and a ghost. If a company reports 500 openings and fills 34, the BLS records 500. The 466 that went nowhere were included in the data set. They appear in economic reports, in analyst briefings, in headlines. In March 2022, JOLTS showed job openings above 11 million while hires hovered between 6 and 7 million. The phantom gap hit 38 percent. Economists cited the number as evidence of a historically tight labor market. The Federal Reserve used the opening figure in monetary policy deliberations. Interest rate decisions were made – decisions that affected mortgage rates, consumer credit, and business lending across the entire economy – calibrated in part to a number that included millions of positions no one intended to fill. “The rise of ghost jobs is muddying the jobs report,” said Dan Kaplan, a senior client partner at the recruiting firm Korn Ferry. “The data tells us there are far more openings than workers. But a significant chunk of those openings don’t represent actual demand.” The distortion runs in one direction. Ghost jobs inflate the count of openings. They do not inflate the hire count. The result is a federal measure that systematically overstates the number of jobs available and understates how difficult it is to get one. Every month. By millions. The headlines that follow – “labor market resilient,” “strong job growth,” “more openings than workers” – are built on a foundation that includes positions that were never real. The labor market is being measured with a broken instrument. The instrument is not broken by accident. It is broken by the aggregate behavior of employers who report what benefits them, and a statistical system that has no way to check. VII. The Cost The cost of ghost jobs is paid in a currency that does not appear on any balance sheet. It is paid on time. Industry estimates place the average time to complete a single tailored job application at 30 to 60 minutes. For roles requiring cover letters, portfolios, or assessment tests, the number is higher. A job seeker who submits 40 applications in a month – a common number in online forums – has spent between 20 and 40 hours on the process. If 30 percent of those listings are ghosts, between 6 and 12 of those hours were donated to companies that were never going to hire anyone. Scale that across the labor force. The BLS counts millions of unfilled openings per month. Behind each one, some number of applicants – ten, fifty, five hundred – submitted materials. Each application represents a person making a decision about how to spend their time. In aggregate, ghost jobs absorb hundreds of thousands of hours of human effort per month. Time that could have been spent on real applications, on skill development, on rest. The 85 percent interview rate makes it worse. These are not passive ghosts that simply collect resumes and go quiet. Companies actively reached out to candidates. Scheduled phone screens. Arranged panel interviews. Flew people to offices. The candidates prepared as if the opportunity were real. In every observable respect, it was real. The posting was real. The recruiter’s email was real. The interview questions were real. Only the job was not. The psychological damage compounds over months. Job seekers in forums and on social media describe the same progression: optimism, then confusion, then self-doubt, then resignation. They stop trusting postings. They stop investing in applications. They assume the worst about every listing, which means they disengage from the legitimate ones, too. The ghost economy not only wastes applicants' time. It poisons the well for employers who are actually hiring. A petition on Change.org calling for the regulation of ghost jobs has gathered more than 50,000 signatures. It does not name a specific company. It is addressed to the economy. VIII. The Silence There is one proposed federal law. It is called the Truth in Job Advertising and Accountability Act. It would require companies to disclose whether a job posting corresponds to a funded, open position and to remove listings within a set period after a role is filled or canceled. A Congressional Research Service report found the bill legally viable. It has not passed. Some states have introduced salary transparency requirements in job postings, which is an adjacent issue but not the same one. Knowing a ghost job's salary does not make it any less of a ghost. The enforcement problem is simple and decisive. Proving that a company posted a job it never intended to fill requires internal communications, budget documents, hiring plans, and records of ATS configuration. The company possesses all of this. The applicant possesses none of it. The asymmetry is total. The company knows the job is fake at the moment of posting. The applicant may never learn it. And the company has no obligation to tell them. No federal agency audits job postings for authenticity. No platform verifies them. No industry body certifies them. The hiring pipeline operates on an honor system, yet four in ten participants have admitted, on the record, that they do not honor it. IX. The Pipeline There is a phrase that recurs in the language of recruiters, HR departments, and workforce strategy documents. It appears in SHRM guidelines, in LinkedIn product marketing, and in the quarterly presentations that talent acquisition teams deliver to their executives. The phrase is “talent pipeline.” A pipeline, in industrial usage, is infrastructure built to move a resource from one place to another. Oil from a well to a refinery. Water from a reservoir to a city. The pipeline has a source and a destination. The resource enters at one end and exits at the other. That is what makes it a pipeline. The talent pipeline of the ghost job economy has a source. Millions of applicants enter it every month. They submit resumes, write cover letters, complete assessments, and attend interviews. The pipeline receives them. It processes them. It sorts, screens, and sends automated responses. It does not have a destination. The resumes are collected. The salary expectations are benchmarked. The data is presented. The slides are approved. The stock price reflects healthy applicant volume. And the applicant – the person who entered the pipeline believing it led to a job – is still inside it, waiting for an outcome that was never part of the design. In June 2025, 7.4 million openings were reported. 5.2 million hires were made. The remaining 2.2 million were processed, cataloged, and presented as evidence of a healthy labor market. The pipeline was never meant to flow. It was only ever meant to fill.

I understand. I find myself having to do the same thing here too many times. You don't have to, not because I would ignore it, I most certainly read everything people go to an effort to cite, especially when I've requested it. But I have already read quite a lot from both viewpoints. Here's the thing with assessing climate risk. Anyone can find studies and reports that say whatever their preferred narrative is. And I feel there is too much priority given to "models". Not just with climate assessment, I find these models to be extremely unreliable. And the GIGO theory holds a lot of water for me. And who is paying for the studies and reports. I also know that most models are most often, "worst case scenarios". And that those worst-case scenarios rarely occur. I used to work in risk management, so I understand quite a bit about how risk management works. It involves not just identifying risks, but also assessing what the chances are of that risk actually occurring. A risk may be very consequential - life on earth could end type thing - but if the risk of it happening is 0.00001%, how much time, effort and money should go into that risk as opposed to risks that may actually occur. I think the majority of people believe in taking care of our earth and being proactive with pollution, the environment and that sort of thing. I think where the climate cult has lost a lot of us is: Scaring everyone into a "drop everything and only focus on this one thing", the whole "We're all gonna die! Crisis! Crisis!" lighting their hair on fire and demonizing anyone who wasn't lighting their hair on fire, to the detriment of programs that would have actually benefitted both the environment and humanity. Shoveling trillions of dollars on if's, maybe's potentially's, possibly's, might's. Blaming everything on "climate change". The large amount of money that was earmarked for climate that has "disappeared" and the total lack of accountability in where that is going. That reeks of SCAM. My feeling is that we've sunk waaaaaay too much time, money and stressed everybody out over this, and it hasn't been worth it. Instead of spending time, effort and resources on finding better energy sources, better agriculture plans, better management of resources......it mostly all went into the pockets of billionaires, destabilizing energy grids and making energy way costlier (which it claimed it was going to make energy cheaper) and tanked the economies of a lot of countries.

The new Carney-appointed PBO, Annette Ryan. An associate of both Carney & Freeland from Oxford. Currently has been serving as Deputy Director of Fintrac. Fintrac is Canada's financial intelligence unit and anti-money laundering agency. Under her leadership, for years, she allowed TD bank to get away with money laundering for drug cartels. Until the Americans shut it down. TD Bank to pay $3 billion in historic money-laundering settlement | AP News So it's no mystery why Carney appointed her. I mean, come on.

Because you're the one who wants everybody pooping their pants over it and shoveling trillions of dollars at it. Almost everything I've read says there has been no real measurable change, in spite of shoveling money at it. You don't provide any cite for your above statement, and suggest we ignore posts with no cites. Just sayin'.

Ya, if everybody voted Conservative, the Liberals would have surely won. 🙄

I'm deluded? You support letting pedos and rapists out on the streets. I don't.

I know, you think it's hilarious that rapists and pedos are let loose on the streets. Ya, it's just so f*%king hilarious to you.

Nobody ever talks about what Trump did with the Trump Accounts - putting $1000 into children's accounts to accrue over their lifetime. It's brilliant. So much so that a couple of big companies, Dell computers for one, also added to the accounts. This is what billionaires should be doing.

This happened with a friend of mine at Xmas. Went home to his ultra-Lib parents for the holidays. They frequently argue about politics. Like the Lib supporters on here, they can't speak about any reason why except they just don't like Poilievre. They know nothing of policy. Anyways, his 23-yr-old daughter really blasted the grandparents. Said they live in a bubble, only watch CBC so they don't get the real picture, etc. Whether any of it stuck, who knows. You're right though, it's the over 65's who love Carney. Poilievre is slaying it with the younger voters.

It does bother me that so many of you Libs care so little about children & women, and so much about foreign criminals.

This is true. Before I moved in Nov, I was thinking of going to MB. There were hardly any jobs that didn't say Indigenous only or Punjab-speakers only. A friend of mine in ON, been looking for a job for almost a year. Applied for a bank job, which she has lots of experience in. Didn't get it. Showed up to the bank a couple weeks later, they were training some Paki guy with an accent so thick you could barely understand him. Very few jobs for whites out there.

You tell me. You support the policy.

Yup. The Libs were on their way out, some suggesting they would even lose party status. Then Carney came along and told them "TRUMP IS GOING TO INVADE US!!!!! EVERYBODY POOP YOUR PANTS!!!!!! I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SAVE YOU!!!! DON'T LOOK AT OUR TERRIBLE RECORD OF FAILURE!!!!!!" And......the id10ts complied.

That's what I said. Canadians voted them in. And you disagreed with me. Which is why I asked, then who is voting them in. Try to keep up. Hopefully mommy brings your pizza pop soon.

OK. So.....who is to blame for Libs being voted in again, despite 11 years of failure? If it's not Canadians voting them in, who is?

Is there another group of people who keep voting them in? Polar bears? Moose? Mosquitos?