suds

I never thought I'd see the day when young adults began voting Conservative and older folk Liberal. We have major problems in this country and they are largely of our own making. And besides housing and doctor shortages, and unemployment... there's the climate, economy, and energy thing which are far more important and have to be addressed in a sensible manner. Carney's got his work cut out for him if he wants to turn this ship around.

Jasper, being a 'National Park' (and not a Provincial Park) is the responsibility of Parks Canada. As such, Parks Canada is responsible for land use planning, development, and environmental matters. Alberta's responsibilities are generally in education, healthcare, and the licensing of drivers. I noticed that one of your interests was 'fighting economic growth', yet you claim we can grow in all kinds of other directions. An explanation perhaps?

Well it does. It destroys everything it touches. Party first. Ideology second. When someone comes along and says country first and means it.... well that's kind of special. And as voters we should demand it.

Politics sucks.

The letter itself makes perfect sense. The best way to get the country back on track is to .... support free enterprise eliminate barriers restore fiscal discipline reform the tax system develop natural resources It also doesn't take a genius to implement these things, only the will and desire to do so. As they say.... 'government is not the answer, but the facilitator'. With the Liberals track record, they logically would support the Conservatives. When governments stop being facilitators and try to micromanage things they usually screw up. Living standards are dependent upon how well an economy functions, and an economy is dependent upon energy and lots of it. If Carny wants to cut fossil fuels... then that baseload energy has to be replaced by something equivalent. And by the time 2050 rolls around were going to require massive amounts of it according to government sources. It's going to be interesting to see how Carney deals with these conflicting realities.

That just about sums up everything in a nutshell. Instead of focusing on Trudeau, Conservatives should have spent their energy focusing on the Liberal party. Otherwise, when Trudeau's replaced.... problem disappears.

Right about now I'm hoping the Liberals can either pick up the seats they need to form a majority government, or come to some working arrangement with the Conservatives to put this country back on track. If not, we're going to go through another 4 years of hell. Of course Liberals working with Conservatives could only happen in a perfect world.

No idea what you're referring to. Or maybe I'm just dyslexic or something.

Ideologues such as Carney only commit themselves to their beliefs and ideologies and rarely to their country. I'm not suggesting he's a bad guy or anything, and I surely believe there's a lot of voters who go along with his beliefs. He wrote a book about them. But I'd rather go with the guy who's actually preaching change and common sense.

The 500,000 per year building starts also includes building starts by the private sector, and only hope to achieve this 500,000 target in 10 years. Best to start out small and see how it works. If successful it can always be expanded. The idea of building these pre-fab and modular homes on publicly owned land is interesting. They also mention something about 'leasing' which could also potentially knock prices down for first time home buyers even further.

I'd be happy with being self sufficient and not being dependent upon oil from the Saudi's and Venezuela. Or for that matter, Alberta oil from pipelines going to refineries in Ontario which have to pass through a number of northern U.S. states. Then as we add more wind, solar, nuclear, hydro electric power, and the infrastructure to get the power where we want... we could gradually turn off the taps and weed ourselves off of fossil fuels. But I have no idea of how long that will take. And no politician can tell you that either. Carney's idea of weeding us off fossil fuels by 2030, well good luck with that. No more fossil fuels to heat our homes or power transportation? Good luck with that too. We've got to be careful here. If covid taught us one thing, is that supply chains can't be depended on, and that wars wherever they may take place cause shortages. Best to be self sufficient especially in regards to food, medicine, vaccines, and energy. Whether any of this makes an ounce of business sense I don't really care either. Just get it done.

It's not as if the oil companies are spending more to pump more oil out of the ground, or that Liberals have anything to do with it either. It's simply because oil companies have found more efficient and profitable ways to go about doing it.

So is mine, but that's only part of it. We also need a functioning economy. And if we hope to get anywhere close to net-zero by 2050 we're going to need a pile of clean energy from somewhere and fast, or things start to shut down. The energy and trade east/west corridor alone isn't the answer but it's a start to us getting back on the right track.

If you had two parties that shared the same views on things you happened to agree with on turning the country around.... then why not vote for the real deal?

Well you're partially right, at least the part about dissecting the data further. 43% of Canadians aged 18-34 would vote to join the U.S. if all assets were converted to USD. So would 33% of those aged 35-54, and 17% aged 55+. You don't find anything about these figures to be just a little concerning?? It tells me that the country IS broken. And it's those who are young who are paying the brunt of the price for it.

I think it may have been a big help if you would have posted this right off the bat instead of me staying up half the night trying to make sense of everything. But I learned a few things so I'm contented. I'm a free speech advocate, as I believe Shullenberger is also. So, not a big fan of censorship by either side including the President of the United States who's motives (which have yet to be determined) will prove to be the case or not.

So the Left (who originally began the free speech movement in the 60's), buys into the theories of critical race theorist Mari Masuda. They begin 'cancelling' those they label as oppressers, and ensure the oppressed are granted the tolerance of hateful speech that comes from the experience of oppression. As a result, free speech becomes more muddled and oriented to social justice. Conservatives and Centrists claim this is divisive and intellectually backward. Trump comes along and does the same thing except there's a difference of opinion about who are the oppressers and who are the oppressed. In doing so, he's reinforcing the Left's position on speech. But there is a difference if it's true that protesters are harassing Jews on campus (in America) while right leaning speakers get cancelled because of their views or what they may or may not say. If Palestinians want to harass Jews or Jews want to harass Palestinians.... then go back to Palestine. Have I got this about right?

Conservatives as a rule don't get involved in violent campus protests. I fail to see any implied moral equivalence. It's always the left.

Is it true that Jewish students are being harassed on campus and is it true that Khalil is in some way encouraging this harassment? If this is all true then there is a fundamental change from the 'status quo'. If not, then what reason has the government got to deport him?

Some Canadian politicians like to refer to net debt/gdp ratios where they include the Quebec and Canada pension funds as assets which combined are worth over $765 billion. Most other countries look at them as assets and liabilities (cancelling each other out) because they have to paid out at some future date. The IMF uses gross debt/gdp ratios that includes all liabilities that require future payment of interest or principal. Using IMF data (2024), Germany has the lowest gross debt/gdp of 62.1%, Canada 103.2%, U.K. 103.8%, France 115.3%, U.S. 124.1%, Italy 138.7%, and Japan 248%. We're holding our own (but not as good as we used to be) especially when compared to Denmark at 27.3%, Sweden 35.4%, and Norway 42.7%. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GGXWDG_NGDP@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD

Where in that short news clip was Rubio rude or offensive? They only cherry picked two sentences so it shouldn't be too hard to find. Put up or shut up.

It wasn't all that long ago that Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer attempted to shut down Enbridge's Line 5 which carried oil and gas from Alberta (through the U.S.) to Ontario. There was an incident but many believe it was more for political reasons. Then the courts got involved. With an Energy East or an East/West energy corridor we could be completely independent from such things and self sufficient. Energy should be a main and critical election issue because our economy and living standards depend so heavily on it.

Your topic title is crude and disrespectful. But one has to consider the source.

If the answer to your question is.... probably none, then your second statement is purely hypothetical.

So what are we waiting for? Clean, abundant, modestly priced energy is everything. Build it (not for north/south export) but to attract business and manufacturing to Canada. Now that's what I'm talking about. According to this electrical engineer (Scott Jansen) it's doable. Beats tariffs trying to attract investment.