CdnFox

Yeah, and I don't really see that getting better. His own ministers are standing up and contradicting what he says. Right there we see his complete lack of experience in the political world showing. He hasn't even got control of his party at this point and there's already her feelings and things going on in the background. That means his ability to get things done slows to a crawl. And when he finally does release his first budget people are going to expect it to be perfect because he had a full year to prepare it. And I can already tell it's going to be a disappointment

One of the lowest population per square foot ratios in the entire universe, we're not full. And we do need an increasing population. It has a large number of benefits not to mention the least of which is we are not taken all that seriously as a market because we don't have that many people. The reason the US has so much clout on the world stage economically is because they've got 400,000 people that buy goods. We have a tenth of that even though our country is technically larger. As we expand our market base earning the right to do business with us becomes more and more important to other players and that's valuable. We also increase our own domestic market and it makes it more practical for businesses to start up and manufacture things to sell within Canada because there's more people to buy them. But while it is an obvious benefit the simple fact of the matter is we don't need to rush to it at light speed. Growing faster than we are capable of is even worse than not growing at all

well it looks like 'court' is how it's going to have to be The Bloc Québécois wants the courts to trigger a new election in Terrebonne Mildy disappointing that the Bloc is the one that has to take on the job of standing up for our democracy but there you go. Hopefully the judge will allow a byelection, which will make those misprints a fairly lostly mistake. Hope someone got fired over that.

Makes little difference. And he obviously feels he's speaking the thoughts of the cabinet or he wouldn't have spoken up at all

Yeah. Honestly i think he sold out before he ever won the election. And i hear that we're now mirroring some of trump's entry rules for people from places like iran. And some of them don't make a lot of sense. He's doing what he's told. There's no elbows.

Yes it is, and point and laugh at them Kid, i love that you've realized you're completely looking like a retarded dolt but you somehow want it to be my fault

Not really. Just about every single gov't that has won power turned one in on time. As noted when harper won power for the first time he released a budget within 3 months, just 1 month after you'd normally expect to see it. And... HE WASN"T THE GOV"T BEFORE THAT. THE LIBERALS WERE. they have all the people, they know the budgets, they know the numbers, they were the gov't There MIGHT be an excuse if he was taking over from another party but there's no excuse for this. What happened to "I have a plan"? Fine, even if you wanted to be INSANELY generous, then he should be releasing his full budget in september when the house goes back. Instead, he's not going to release one this year at all and will do a basic 'economic update' which is useless without a budget SOMETIME in the fall, when he feels like it. We MIGHT get a budget the year after. No promises so far. Every single province has turned out a budget. It is NOT hard. You budget based on what you know and then you tell people the budget has some lee way built in for 'unpredictable' orange factors and IF things go off the rails THEN you do an economic update and you make corrections. It's not like Canadians won't forgive you for trump related weirdness. But he's been clear, no budget this year. that is completely indefensible. It creates uncertainty in our own markets, our businesses and investors will not like the uncertainty, it completely robs the opposition who would normally serve on committees looking at expenditures the ability to hold the gov't to account. The public does not know where the money is intended to be spent that they are required to give the gov't which is pretty horrible. And the opposition gets no opportunity to share their thoughts before the budget goes to vote so they get no say in the expendiures which is a pretty flagrant violation of democracy. This is kind of a big deal, and this is how they're starting out. With secrets and zero accountability. Even you are going to have to admit this is not how things should be.

Oh look, once again you're talking without knowing a thing about what you're talking about. As i just posted, 2006 Canadian federal budget - Wikipedia Harper delivered his budget within 3 months of winning office, 1 month after it would traditionally be presented in the house and that's not that uncommon. So. What were you saying about hyper partisans who just spout any old lie to prop up their tribal echo chamber? LOLOLOL It took you only one sentence to look like a loser that time

What, so you're just out and out lying now? 2006 Canadian federal budget - Wikipedia The budget was presented ON MAY 2nd. The election was on JANUARY 23rd. So at MOST you could say he presented it THREE months after he was elected. .And only ONE month after when it's traditional to do so. You're such a lying sack of shit.

The ndp ARE the liberals. Or have been for the last 4 years.

I got the point dead on, you realize what you said was stupid, now you're embarrassed and trying to retcon a new meaning to what you said. Like I've said before I'm sure you slay them on the elementary school playgrounds at recess I have known many, some well, but anybody can learn their track record and their job performance. It's not radically complicated What you're saying is it's not difficult to know people. My god you're useless Twat

Once again more than you. In fact i continued to read to the point where you said it doesn't matter to you. So again i was right, you don't care about accountability. Especially when it's liberal. You don't want transparency. Producing a budget and having the watchdog comment on it at the end of the year is transparency. It's one of the most important of all the transparancies - seeing whether the spending of public taxpayer money was done within accordance of a plan and whether it was successful. It's always fun pointing out what a hypocritical liar you are You literally just admitted transparancy "Doesn't affect your life" and you don't care about it. Ahhh ... you mean because all the left wing supporters voted for the liberals. Otherwise it would have been a cpc majority. Sure. You kept the liberals in this time, well done. But we knew you supported them all along.

Your neighbor won't be setting your tax rate next week. Your neighbor won't be deciding whether or not to come seize your firearms. Your neighbor won't be restricting your freedoms on the internet with new speech laws. Your neighbor won't be burdening your grandchildren with new deficit spending which will once again double the national debt in a few years So it doesn't really matter that you don't know your neighbor. It does matter a lot that you don't know carney

And getting treated like a kid in grade 3 is pretty much what you called for

Impossible to say until he tables it. What if he's planning on increasing taxes 50%? that will have an impact on your life, assuming that you are not on pogey And of course there's something you can do about it. The public frequently applies political pressure to political parties when they do things that the people don't approve of. Happens all the time He's got a minority government. He cannot afford to be pissing people off to the point where they hold a grudge. If there were spending or cuts that you didn't approve of and other people agreed with you he would have to take that into account and reconsider his actions Once again we see that you actually don't care about accountability in the slightest, especially liberal accountability

Well for heaven's sake even governments with a majority put out a budget Again, a stupid thing to say. Especially for a guy who supposedly all about accountability. A budget is a plan of the fiscal responsibility and targets of a government over the next year and allows people to measure whether or not they met it told him to account if they don't Oh but it's a liberal government so you don't believe in holding them to account. I forgot. You'd only be angry about this if it was a conservative government

You've been spending too much time with Myata The law is what the law is, and realistically speaking deportation should happen when people who are in the country cannot prove that they have a right to be there to the authorities. Dragging the issue to court is an effort to delay things unreasonably. Either you're here legally and you can produce documentation which says so or you're not. If they're not in the country legally then they should be out of the country. And too many illegals make use of the court systems to drag out their illegal stay in the country If the bad guys know they will be kicked out the moment they're found in the country and they know that there are going to be more problems getting into the country to begin with then fewer bad guys will try And that appears to be the goal of the trump government. A lot of Americans are completely on board with that goal and why wouldn't they be? So if this is the way to achieve it then so be it. If left-leaning people and democrats wanted it differently than they should have friday and effective rules when they were in charge. And they didn't. Even the ones they proposed wouldn't have solved any problems. They refused to solve the problem, so now trump is doing it the way he thinks is best. There's a lesson in there

It wasn't possible Decades ago. Which you would have known if you were intelligent well that's your liberal friends that prevented that from happening. In any case, now is all we've got to work with. And now we should be getting more pipelines built, and getting our products to as many markets as possible.

Awwww look at you.... making your granddad proud like that LOLOL He seemed to take pride in stupidity after all I'm sure all the kids in grade three are terribly impressed with your wit and insult skills LOLOL

Amusingly your statement appears to be untrue.

Sure he did. Your comprehension issues are not my problem You're being retarded by the way Oh look, you've realized you're wrong and you wanted to be my fault So you don't believe that a government has a responsibility to publish a budget What, repeating what you've said? The more interesting thing is it always makes you feel bad when I do That is one of the stupidest things you have ever said on this forum. And it was up against some pretty healthy competition

Actually she did. Or to be more precise she said that the government is well within its rights to do that legally speaking. Should her statements indicate that there is nothing preventing the government from choosing to have policies which allow for more time for someone to make a possible habeas argument, but that the law doesn't require it and it doesn't require that they be given time to make that argument before they are deported I think you'll find that's an inaccurate statement I can get a white board out if you need further clarification There's no interpretation. As I said this is plain English. You are feeling a deep compulsion to twist the words out of shape to try and fit a narrative. I on the other hand I'm simply reading out loud. Yes. The current law is thus and trump is following the current law. If they want the law changed the people will have to speak out in one fashion or another No, it will be a moral discussion as to whether or not habeas corpus applies in this specific circumstance which by tradition and law it does not. Habeus Corpus does not apply in every single legal circumstance, nor should it. The country will have to have a discussion as to whether or not it should apply here or whether it's preferable to deport those who are in the country without lawful reason first and let them seek redress from outside of the country if they feel they should be allowed in. This isn't a question of keeping habeas corpus in general as you appear to be pretending. Yes, but Hains is also clearly saying there is no legal requirement to do so. Your claim this means that trump had to is just absolutely unsupported 100 percent. The judge is clear, they do not allow enough time for a possible habius claim, they are not required to do so under current law, if people don't like that then they'll have to use their democratic options to pressure the current gov't to change it's policy or the law or elect those who will. Period full stop. That's what the judge says. No where at all does the judge say there's a requirement or that a law or the person's rights were violated or anything remotely close to that. "this is how the law is, they acted within the law, their current policy does not allow for habeus in these cases and if you want to change that the people will have to exercise their options to bring about change. "

Why would that be funny? Herbie said that there had been no change in prime minister since the last budget. The last budget was presented in 2024. there has been a change of prime minister since then. What part of that is untrue or in conflict with the idea that carney is like justin? Nobody said anything about there being or not being a difference. But there's no doubt that his statement that there's been no change in prime minister is wrong. Justin was the previous prime minister, Carney is the current one. How is this remotely confusing for you? They may act similar but nobody has ever said they're actually the same person And just to be clear, if justin HAD remained prime minister i would have expected him to put out a 2025 budget at some point as well. So what are you saying, you just don't believe in the idea of gov'ts putting out budgets any more?

Except she didn't say it. Sure, most judges are afraid to give clear judgements. 🙄 (smak!) what's wrong with you? There is no such thing as 'legal with a caveate'. something is lawful or it is not. What she said as you point out is: "Having done its job, the Court now leaves it to the Political Branches of the government, and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals, to decide whether the laws and those executing them continue to reflect their will,” Haines wrote. That is plain English. What she says in no unequivocal terms is that currently his actions are allowed by law. They are not guaranteed the right to challenge deportation before being deported and they can challenge it after they've been deported and nothing prevents that. She goes on to say that the voters will have to decide whether or not this law is acceptable or they want to change in the laws or the people who make them. In other words this is legal, and if you don't like it you're going to have to hire someone else who will change the law or enact policy that reflects something different. Because currently this is the way the law is And fair enough, that is an accurate statement. If people don't like the law then the solution is to change the law and that may involve changing the lawmakers or at least convincing the current ones to do things differently But right now the people can still challenge the deportation outside of the country and can apply for permission to be in the country from outside the country. We can discuss if the law should change, but we can't really say that the current law isn't the current law .