Pierre is back!

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

As the headline title says, guess we'll find out in a couple weeks.

I do find it funny though that still crying in their beer conservatives who know nothing of the details from an obviously  positive headline put a spin on expecting, and likely hoping for failure.  

That's called experience. 

Liberals like you said the same thing when the battery projects were announced and turned out to be complete crap.  

Carney is great at announcements. Remember when interprovincial trade barriers were going to be gone by July and we'd have interprovincial free trade to make up for the tariffs?  Yeah.  Me to.  Guess what. 

And a port isn't of much use without a pipeline running to it. 

We'll see.  But based on history, we're probably in for more disappointment. 

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Poilievre is invested in (VCE) Vanguard FTSE Canada Index ETF, where Brookfield Corp is one of the top assets. Think he's hopeful?

So you're comparing someone who's invested in something that invested in something else to someone who's actually worked for the company in question, has milions worth of direct investment and a pension, and will likely work for again when he's done with politics which he started a few months ago. 

yeah, that's' pretty much the same thing. 🙄

[CouchPotato]

 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I know i'm going to regret asking, but what are you referring to    

Income trusts.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Income trusts.

LOL he didn't lie to do it.  He intended to, he got into power, he looked at the books (which you don't get till then) and the opposition came to him and said \'you have to do this" and he realized he was wrong and so he broke his word.  He stood up and appologized for it and was straight up about it, didn't blame anyone and owned it.

 Only you liberal lefties can look at a lie and demand it's the truth and look at a truth and call it a lie   he messed up, he owned it, i can see where that kind of honesty would throw you seeing as it's not really something you'd do, 

[Barquentine]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Trade deals (mark's failed there)

Pipleine deals (mark's failed there)

Interprovincial trade deals (mark's failed there)

First nations agreements (mark has REALLY failed there

Yeah, maybe you should specify those deals. How does a junior cabinet minister do any of those? You're fawning like Trump's ass-kissers.

[Legato]

11 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Poilievre is invested in (VCE) Vanguard FTSE Canada Index ETF, where Brookfield Corp is one of the top assets. Think he's hopeful?

 

[LinkSoul60]

What does this Mean? Nothing....    Really... I thought Canadian's were close to unanimous in that we have to start unleashing our natural resources to the world?   

It means a lot to the mining companies that signed agreements - At the same time, three Canadian companies in the mining sector — Troilus Gold Corporation, Torngat Metals and Rock Tech Lithium — all signed co-operative agreements with German companies.

Kudo's to Poilievre for figuring that out that a letter of intent is not a binding agreement,  It's an agreement they have to work together toward the objectives they outline to grow trade between the countries.  He's probably just now starting to understand that it's hard to put numbers around a trade deal when we first need to build the LNG terminal/s infrastructure on the East Coast to support this trade to Germany and other European countries.  Those details as noted will be laid out in a couple weeks.

This is terrible news....  I think we need to get the focus back to Trudeau's shortcomings and deporting immigrants.

[LinkSoul60]

5 minutes ago, Legato said:

 

And, your point is, what?   It's called investing.

[Legato]

19 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

And, your point is, what?   It's called investing.

The point is you did not have a point.

It's still ducks in a row.

[LinkSoul60]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

The point is you did not have a point.

It's still ducks in a row.

So the solution is to elect politicians who have no investments so there is no potential conflict of interest?

Again, Poilievre holds investments in Brookfield, big 6 banks, Enbridge, CPKC rail, etc....  No conflict of interest there, or only because Carney holds more, and is a 'lib'?

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL he didn't lie to do it.  He intended to, he got into power, he looked at the books (which you don't get till then) and the opposition came to him and said \'you have to do this" and he realized he was wrong and so he broke his word.   

Keeping income trusts was a key campaign promise. He knew as well as anyone the state of Canada's finances, they're open to anyone to look at all the time. 

Quote

He stood up and appologized for it and was straight up about it, didn't blame anyone and owned it.

Mr. Harper: "... once again, this government will not apologize for trying to protect the interests of individuals and a tax system that makes big business pay its fair share."

Conclusions: One, Harper and other leaders of the Conservative Party very clearly and repeatedly, orally and in writing, promised Canadians that they would not tax income trusts. Two, Harper's defence of the huge trust tax involved a lie when he denied that that his party had promised not to tax income trusts. Three, the PM made no substantive response to any of the questions posed to him. Instead, he attacked the Liberal Party and made false statements about its position on the taxation of corporations. Four, Harper's reversal of his promise and his defence of it are exactly this type of behaviour that leads citizens have such a poor opinion of politicians and accord them such a low level of trust (below that of car salespersons).

The Hill Times

https://archive.ph/UbaSG#selection-2433.0-2441.14

 

Quote

Only you liberal lefties can look at a lie and demand it's the truth and look at a truth and call it a lie   he messed up, he owned it, i can see where that kind of honesty would throw you seeing as it's not really something you'd do,

LMAO!

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

So the solution is to elect politicians who have no investments so there is no potential conflict of interest?

Again, Poilievre holds investments in Brookfield, big 6 banks, Enbridge, CPKC rail, etc....  No conflict of interest there, or only because Carney holds more, and is a 'lib'?

Again, you're a liar, and that's why you say things like that.

Poilievre actually "has shares IN A FUND which lists Brookfield among its investments". 

Stop acting like he's got a small fortune directly invested in Brookfield you f'ing weasel. 

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Yeah, maybe you should specify those deals. How does a junior cabinet minister do any of those? You're fawning like Trump's ass-kissers.

ROFLMAO!!!!  Carney is trump's biggest ass kicker currently on the planet   So nice try  

But there were dozens of deals that he got to work on while he was in harper's gov't. You can look them up yourself. Not to mention things like the equalization formula.   When you're IN politics and you're working on this stuff and you see how things go you gain knowledge and experience.  That's how it works. Carney was never exposed to any of that. 

PP has decades of experience learning how all of this works. Carney had none. And it's really showing right now. 

 

 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

What does this Mean? Nothing....    Really... I thought Canadian's were close to unanimous in that we have to start unleashing our natural resources to the world?   

It means a lot to the mining companies that signed agreements - At the same time, three Canadian companies in the mining sector — Troilus Gold Corporation, Torngat Metals and Rock Tech Lithium — all signed co-operative agreements with German companies.

Kudo's to Poilievre for figuring that out that a letter of intent is not a binding agreement,  It's an agreement they have to work together toward the objectives they outline to grow trade between the countries.  He's probably just now starting to understand that it's hard to put numbers around a trade deal when we first need to build the LNG terminal/s infrastructure on the East Coast to support this trade to Germany and other European countries.  Those details as noted will be laid out in a couple weeks.

This is terrible news....  I think we need to get the focus back to Trudeau's shortcomings and deporting immigrants.

It's nothing.  It's just a hat tip that they might one day decide to work on something. It may be exciting news one day but today it's a distraction from Carney's failures. 

No need to go back to trudeau, carney's quickly developing his own list of goof ups that are worth looknig at and distractions like this are just cheezy and cheap. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, eyeball said:

Keeping income trusts was a key campaign promise. He knew as well as anyone the state of Canada's finances, they're open to anyone to look at all the time. 

No, they're not.  Sorry. That's not how it works.  If they were we wouldn't need a parliamentary budget officer... which we didn't have till harper created the position. 

But sure it was a huge part of his campaign, he blew it and had to break his word, he owned that and if he didn't know he could deliver he shouldn't have promsied it. But that's not the same as a lie.  

Quote

 

Mr. Harper: "... once again, this government will not apologize for trying to protect the interests of individuals and a tax system that makes big business pay its fair share."

Conclusions: One, Harper and other leaders of the Conservative Party very clearly and repeatedly, orally and in writing, promised Canadians that they would not tax income trusts. Two, Harper's defence of the huge trust tax involved a lie when he denied that that his party had promised not to tax income trusts. Three, the PM made no substantive response to any of the questions posed to him. Instead, he attacked the Liberal Party and made false statements about its position on the taxation of corporations. Four, Harper's reversal of his promise and his defence of it are exactly this type of behaviour that leads citizens have such a poor opinion of politicians and accord them such a low level of trust (below that of car salespersons).

The Hill Times

https://archive.ph/UbaSG#selection-2433.0-2441.14

 

Well, an opinion piece from a left wing paper and a writer who hated harper certainly is proof   Sorry but he's making statements about what harper said that are just wrong. Big shock. 

Quote

LMAO!

I accept your traditional admission of defeat   

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well, an opinion piece from a left wing paper and a writer who hated harper certainly is proof 

He quoted Harper's words spoken to Parliament.

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But that's not the same as a lie. 

LMAO!

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, LinkSoul60 said:

So the solution is to elect politicians who have no investments so there is no potential conflict of interest?

Again, Poilievre holds investments in Brookfield, big 6 banks, Enbridge, CPKC rail, etc....  No conflict of interest there, or only because Carney holds more, and is a 'lib'?

And again as has been pointed out many times that's not true.  He has holdings in a company that has holdings in those investments. He's already at arms length. Carney can pick the phone up and get his job back at brooksfield tomorrow, and has direct investment. 

There are those who do believe that leaders should be forced to sell their direct investments before taking office and if you don't want to then maybe it's not the career path for you. We've seen the abuses. 

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

He quoted Harper's words spoken to Parliament.

 

And then took them completely out of context. 

Harper owned what he did and why he did it.  Period. Not a lie.  And the liberals voted for it btw.  The liberals in typical fashion (just like you  )  demanded he appologize for 'lying' and he said he didn't lie but he was wrong and this was the right thing to do and that he's not going to apologize for doing the right thing now. 

Of course, you can't really recognize what a lie is being liberal and all, so this may have confused you  

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO!!!!  Carney is trump's biggest ass kicker currently on the planet   So nice try  

Did you think that I was exaggerating when I called CBC acolytes "cultists"?

[WestCanMan]

23 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And again as has been pointed out many times that's not true.  He has holdings in a company that has holdings in those investments. He's already at arms length. Carney can pick the phone up and get his job back at brooksfield tomorrow, and has direct investment. 

There are those who do believe that leaders should be forced to sell their direct investments before taking office and if you don't want to then maybe it's not the career path for you. We've seen the abuses. 

Happy Wednesday. 

Today, from the LPOC toady POV, Poilievre's 'investment' in and ties to Brookfield rivals that of Carney. And that's probably not even their dumbest talking point today. 

Ho-hummmm.

[CdnFox]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Happy Wednesday. 

Today, from the LPOC toady POV, Poilievre's 'investment' in and ties to Brookfield rivals that of Carney. And that's probably not even their dumbest talking point today. 

Ho-hummmm.

Watching them try to work all this out is like watching a puppy try to walk for the first time.  it's like "C'mon little guy, c'mon, ohhh ... almost there.... Ooop, he's down." 

[eyeball]

53 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And then took them completely out of context. 

We're talking about the context you've framed here, you said Harper apologized and the Parliamentary record clearly shows he didn't.

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

and he said he didn't lie but he was wrong and this was the right thing to do and that he's not going to apologize for doing the right thing now. 

You said he apologized for something then not now. If you're saying he apologized to Canadians somewhere else later on, where did he do that, and what did he apologize for?

57 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course, you can't really recognize what a lie is being liberal and all, so this may have confused you

No, it's clear your definition for lie come from the same dictionary your definition of apology does.

[CouchPotato]

Pierre did a great interview with CTV Atlantic yesterday.

 

[blackbird]

On 8/26/2025 at 7:42 AM, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes, exactly....  A leader has to be charismatic which Poilievre isn't.  The facts are that he isn't likeable which is why he had to go to AB and spend $2M of taxpayers money to get his job back.

If people would pay more attention to the policies and decisions of the government when voting instead of just the personalities of the politicians, we might have a better country.  Perhaps think of how carbon taxes on industry are pushing up the cost of living for everyone.  Think about all the Liberal government regulations that hamstring mining companies, pipeline companies, oil companies and make it impossible to develop our natural resources.  If you would quit being obsessed with the candidates personality and personal experience and realize it is the party's policies that are the important issue.  Policies are what make and break Canada, not the leader's charismatic behavior.  This is why Canada is in such a mess.

[WestCanMan]

On 8/26/2025 at 7:42 AM, LinkSoul60 said:

Yes, exactly....  A leader has to be charismatic which Poilievre isn't.  The facts are that he isn't likeable which is why he had to go to AB and spend $2M of taxpayers money to get his job back.

If only he wore nicer socks, started fights with India, called the PM of Japan Chinese, called people "racists and misogynists" just for thinking for themselves, accused all Canadians of a fake genocide because of something his dad did, etc, leftards would like him more.