What The Liberals Did To Canada

[LinkSoul60]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Dang.

If only you had this conviction a decade ago.  We wouldn't be in this mess.

You can blame me for 2015 and 2025... not between those years though.

[Goddess]

I think we all know that Carney is desperate to get a majority government, by any means necessary.  And he'll get it.

A majority will give him free rein to implement his life-long wet dreams of Net Zero agenda and Central Banker agenda.  He's the architect of both.

I don't think Canadians know what's coming.

And when they get the final bill......they ain't gonna like it.

4 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You can blame me for 2015 and 2025... not between those years though.

Are you going to give the Liberals another decade of chances?

Do you think Canada has that much time economically?

[ironstone]

10 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

You appear to be a big supporter of US policy so I'm sure you'll recall that the liberal plan to go all in on EV's was very much driven by the Biden administration direction for the auto sector, with we are and will continue to be integrated with.

No, nothing is guaranteed which is why incentives have to put forth to attract and retain investment for the long term.  

You're correct that employment and throughput in Canadian auto sector has declined over the past couple decades, and your solution to this is....what?  

Not necessarily a big supporter of US policy, more of a supporter of smart, sensible policy, regardless of who it comes from. I didn't think the Biden administration's auto policy was great when they imposed rather unreasonable mileage and emission targets for auto manufacturers.

There is a place for EV's in the market of course, but they aren't for everyone and perhaps not suitable for long range hauling or extreme cold weather.

You say incentives help attract and retain investment. They do attract, but not necessarily retain the investment as we've seen with Stellantis moving more production to the US.

As Goddess has already mentioned above, the Liberals have thrown tens of billions at the automakers, and to what end if production is still going down?

The Northvolt plant in Quebec? Terminated.  E-One Moli in BC? Halted. NextStar EV plant in Windsor? Experiencing layoffs.

Governments don't exactly have the best record when it comes to picking winners and losers in business.

Poilievre's proposals seem pretty sensible, but they will be rejected or ignored because they come from Poilievre.

Key Proposals
Tariff-Free Auto Pact:
Poilievre is pushing for a tariff-free auto pact with the U.S., which would entail shared protections against imports from countries like China. This includes the cancellation of previous agreements that allow for increasing the number of electric vehicles (EVs) imported from China.
Enhanced Domestic Production:
He argues for a focus on increasing Canadian production. This aligns with a broader strategy to grant automakers who increase production in Canada greater access to the U.S. market without tariffs.
Fighting Tariffs and Trade Barriers:
Poilievre is committed to advocating for fair trade practices, specifically to eliminate tariffs on Canadian-made vehicles entering the U.S. He has emphasized the need for full exemptions for the Canadian auto sector from U.S. "Buy America" rules.
Legislative Support:
Proposals for a bi-partisan committee in Parliament to present a united front in negotiations with the U.S. administration regarding trade and tariffs were also made, aimed at strengthening Canada’s position.
Expansion of Relationships:
Poilievre is scheduled for meetings in the U.S. to engage with auto industry leaders, highlighting the need to leverage positive relationships with the American public for mutual benefits.
Investment in Energy:
Alongside his auto sector focus, Poilievre plans to advocate for Canadian energy interests, aiming to enhance Canada's role in providing energy solutions as part of the broader economic strategy.
 

One can argue that of course, fighting US tariffs is a no-brainer. But that begs the question, why has Carney failed to negotiate a solution? I believe he would rather keep the 'orange man bad' narrative to keep going since so many Canadians buy into it.

[LinkSoul60]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

I think we all know that Carney is desperate to get a majority government, by any means necessary.  And he'll get it.

A majority will give him free rein to implement his life-long wet dreams of Net Zero agenda and Central Banker agenda.  He's the architect of both.

I don't think Canadians know what's coming.

And when they get the final bill......they ain't gonna like it.

All party leaders would prefer a majority.  Good thing for him that conservative MP's are disillusioned with Poilievre's so-called leadership and the NDP continues to falter.  The floor crossers from those parties obviously see better opportunity to help their constituents with a Carney government.  

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, LinkSoul60 said:

conservative MP's are disillusioned with Poilievre's so-called leadership

Yes, yes.

I'm sure the huge raises, fancy new titles, world travel and unlimited expense accounts with zero accountability had nothing to do with their decisions.

3 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

The floor crossers from those parties obviously see better opportunity to help their constituents with a Carney government.

That's what they're saying, for sure.  It's a bold claim.

I'm not sure the Net Zero and Central Banking agendas will "help" Canadians, though.  And the voters who elected them clearly didn't want those agendas or they would have voted Liberal in the first place.

 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Thank you for proving my point.

I knew it would be you that wouldn't disappoint. 😎

Point? You had a point??? LOL

 

1 hour ago, Legato said:

So can't answer the question, quick, move into deflection mode.

Still frightened of Poilievre I see.

Thing is...all you can do is ask questions...like PP ...useless and unnecessary questions that require no answers.

Frightened of who?  Polievere the loser?  Lost his own seat, made a minion leave to take their seat and now says he will take some other seat in the next attempt?? How can a transient forever politician frighten anyone? LOL

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Easy enough questions to answer....

1. Yes, fail on building a stronger domestic economy.

2. I'd be inclined to vote for an alternative, if in fact there was one.

Not complicated is it...?

HA HA HA says people that have no power, no authority.

And yes, as so many of us have said...we would vote for an alternative ....if in fact there was an alternative but....there is not ...only 4 failed leaders in 4 elections LOL

So no, not complicated at all...the best political party has won...4 times.

[Legato]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Point? You had a point??? LOL

 

Thing is...all you can do is ask questions...like PP ...useless and unnecessary questions that require no answers.

Frightened of who?  Polievere the loser?  Lost his own seat, made a minion leave to take their seat and now says he will take some other seat in the next attempt?? How can a transient forever politician frighten anyone? LOL

HA HA HA says people that have no power, no authority.

And yes, as so many of us have said...we would vote for an alternative ....if in fact there was an alternative but....there is not ...only 4 failed leaders in 4 elections LOL

So no, not complicated at all...the best political party has won...4 times.

So answer the question instead of dodging, you really don't have a clue.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

as so many of us have said...we would vote for an alternative ....if in fact there was an alternative but....there is not

Baloney.

You all have your head so far up Liberal a$$, there would never be an alternative that would be acceptable to you.

How do I know?

11 years of Liberal failure.  And they're acceptable to you.

[ExFlyer]

25 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Baloney.

You all have your head so far up Liberal a$$, there would never be an alternative that would be acceptable to you.

How do I know?

11 years of Liberal failure.  And they're acceptable to you.

Baloney???

When the conservatives get a leader that has Canadians behind them,...that would be a huge step for them.

So far in 4 elections and 3 different leaders they have failed. Admit it, the conservatives are falling behind and cannot get out of the hole they created. LOL

11 years of liberal government should very well tell you what Canadians think of conservative leadership, policies and the party.

[ExFlyer]

35 minutes ago, Legato said:

So answer the question instead of dodging, you really don't have a clue.

The questions are not worth answering.

They are typical conservative Sealioning/"just Asking Questions (otherwise known as JAQing off ). Terms describe a tactic of endlessly asking questions to deliberately waste time, acting as if they are seeking answers, but actually preventing progress.

No dodging at all, just not worth wasting time debating becasue all you do is a Sysyphean debate LOL

Edited March 12 by ExFlyer

[LinkSoul60]

16 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Not necessarily a big supporter of US policy, more of a supporter of smart, sensible policy, regardless of who it comes from. I didn't think the Biden administration's auto policy was great when they imposed rather unreasonable mileage and emission targets for auto manufacturers.

If everyone had the luxury of hindsight there would be few to no miscalculations of policies.  The fact though is that the NA auto industry is highly integrated and if the dog (US) moves in a certain direction the tail (Canada and Mexico) inevitably follows.

20 minutes ago, ironstone said:

There is a place for EV's in the market of course, but they aren't for everyone and perhaps not suitable for long range hauling or extreme cold weather.

Nobody ever said EV's were for everyone.... with maybe the exception of Trudeau.

22 minutes ago, ironstone said:

You say incentives help attract and retain investment. They do attract, but not necessarily retain the investment as we've seen with Stellantis moving more production to the US.

If the value of exiting an investment is the best long term move for a company they'll do it every day.  

23 minutes ago, ironstone said:

As Goddess has already mentioned above, the Liberals have thrown tens of billions at the automakers, and to what end if production is still going down?

To try and retain that business and the employment that accompanies it?  Again, this is a hindsight thing so answers become much easier if you know the outcome.  Do I assume you believe that knowing there has been a decline in Canadian auto sector for many years we should have just said 'to hell with it' and pulled the plug on any form of incentives years ago rather than to trying to retain that business?

31 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Governments don't exactly have the best record when it comes to picking winners and losers in business.

You can only dance with the girls you brought to the party....who actually were already there dating back 80 years or so.

34 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Poilievre's proposals seem pretty sensible, but they will be rejected or ignored because they come from Poilievre.

You'll have to pardon me, but this is freaking hilarious....  and not because it's Poilievre, but the clown does add more humour to it....

A tariff-free auto pact.... seriously!  I wonder if Carney and team have thought about that?  You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Trump has said about our respective auto industries and his belief the US doesn't need Canada or our cars.

40 minutes ago, ironstone said:

He argues for a focus on increasing Canadian production. This aligns with a broader strategy to grant automakers who increase production in Canada greater access to the U.S. market without tariffs.

Read above..,  This is the exact opposite path Trump wants to take.  I'm sure Poilievre does, but do you honestly believe that the US would be on-board with more auto production in Canada so we can eliminate US tariffs and export more there?  That's comical....and highly uneducated given the what we know about the current trade position of the US.

48 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Fighting Tariffs and Trade Barriers:
Poilievre is committed to advocating for fair trade practices, specifically to eliminate tariffs on Canadian-made vehicles entering the U.S. He has emphasized the need for full exemptions for the Canadian auto sector from U.S.

I know you're seriously anti-liberal but do you not think for maybe even a second that Carney and team have been lobbying for the same?  

50 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Legislative Support:
Proposals for a bi-partisan committee in Parliament to present a united front in negotiations with the U.S. administration regarding trade and tariffs were also made, aimed at strengthening Canada’s position.

I do see merit with this.  It's too bad though he's always a year behind and should have suggested this last year when the tariffs began rather than defaulting to his only schtick of blaming Trudeau and liberals for everything, or waiting until the he needed to pivot because of his political failures.

55 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Expansion of Relationships:
Poilievre is scheduled for meetings in the U.S. to engage with auto industry leaders, highlighting the need to leverage positive relationships with the American public for mutual benefits.

Again, you're anti-liberal, who has been doing this exact thing for the past year.  The challenge Poilievre has is that he's the forklift driver.  If you want to discuss business partnerships you need to be talking to the principles and influencers, not the forklift drivers.

59 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Alongside his auto sector focus, Poilievre plans to advocate for Canadian energy interests, aiming to enhance Canada's role in providing energy solutions as part of the broader economic strategy.

Makes sense....  Sell more oil at a lower price to US customers rather than getting a longer dollar with other export partners.  I'll defer to what I said a few times above....energy security has been and is a topic of discussion in the trades talks.

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

One can argue that of course, fighting US tariffs is a no-brainer. But that begs the question, why has Carney failed to negotiate a solution? I believe he would rather keep the 'orange man bad' narrative to keep going since so many Canadians buy into it.

Correct, the objective is to argue for free trade.... that's a no-brainer.  I look at it differently.... Carney hasn't 'failed' to negotiate a solution but rather it's very obvious that he won't agree to a trade deal that doesn't benefit Canada.  That's simple business you learn in class 101.  

"Orange man' is bad for Canada....that's become quite obvious hasn't it?  And yes, it does benefit Carney because of his background that Canadian's far prefer over the alternatives background resume of....,???

 

 

[LinkSoul60]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Yes, yes.

I'm sure the huge raises, fancy new titles, world travel and unlimited expense accounts with zero accountability had nothing to do with their decisions.

That's what they're saying, for sure.  It's a bold claim.

I'm not sure the Net Zero and Central Banking agendas will "help" Canadians, though.  And the voters who elected them clearly didn't want those agendas or they would have voted Liberal in the first place.

 

Something tells me you would be singing loud and proud if the floor crossers were going to the Conservative Party....

It is what it is.... people are attracted right now to his government and see better opportunity to benefit their constituents by being aligned with liberals.

 

[ironstone]

11 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Nobody ever said EV's were for everyone.... with maybe the exception of Trudeau.

And yet, the Liberals are sticking by plan that all vehicles sold in 2035 must be zero emission. This despite warnings from auto industry leaders that it's unrealistic.

So they kind of are saying that EV's are for everyone.

The last time I checked, the cheapest EV sold in Canada (Fiat 500) was twice as expensive as the cheapest ICE (a Nissan)

[LinkSoul60]

5 minutes ago, ironstone said:

And yet, the Liberals are sticking by plan that all vehicles sold in 2035 must be zero emission. This despite warnings from auto industry leaders that it's unrealistic.

So they kind of are saying that EV's are for everyone.

The last time I checked, the cheapest EV sold in Canada (Fiat 500) was twice as expensive as the cheapest ICE (a Nissan)

That's 10 years down the road and said it will be looked at as the industry evolves, just like the removal of 2030 guidelines was. 

Last I checked the China tariff agreement means Canada will allow 49K EV's that are of a maximum $35K price tag which only makes that price range more competitive.  

To each their own in what vehicle you want to purchase but in my travels and as a percentage of the vehicles I notice, EV's without question are growing in popularity.  Keep in mind I live in the Vancouver area so I'm sure climate and demographics have something to do with that.

 

[Reg Volk]

34 minutes ago, ironstone said:

And yet, the Liberals are sticking by plan that all vehicles sold in 2035 must be zero emission. This despite warnings from auto industry leaders that it's unrealistic.

So they kind of are saying that EV's are for everyone.

The last time I checked, the cheapest EV sold in Canada (Fiat 500) was twice as expensive as the cheapest ICE (a Nissan)

It's so DUMB to call the EV toy cars "zero emission".  Where does the electricity come from to run your toy cars, stupid EV cultists???  Such a load of crap.

[Goddess]

Liberals announce Bill C-22, one of 4 censorship Bills the Liberals have prioritized, and here's what it will do:

• Anandsagaree can issue a secret order to install devices, equipment and software to spy on you.
• Warrants are no longer needed.
• Electronic service providers are forced to hand over all your data.
• Allows the government to use illegal hacks and leaks to get information. (Like they did during the Convoy)
• No judicial oversight.

In the committee meetings on this Bill, concerns were raised that there is nothing in the Bill preventing them from using this on ordinary citizens, like is being done in the UK under similar legislation, arresting and jailing people for posting memes or opinions the government doesn't like.

Not to worry.

The party that used our Charter to wipe their a$$es with, subjected citizens to years-long lawfare (and lost), got banks to hand over lists of people who donated $5 to a cause they didn't like and then froze their bank accounts, got the media to lie for them about what was going on, the same people who want their own texts evaporated after 15 days.......they promise they won't do that.

[Goddess]

56 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

If everyone had the luxury of hindsight there would be few to no miscalculations of policies.

Poilievre believes the gov't should support the free market by not over-regulating and over-taxing, but not manage the free market or pick winners and losers.  They're clearly bad at it.

It's not just the auto industry the Liberals lost investments in.  It's been every far-left radical idea that's come along, including a cricket factory where 10s of millions went down the toilet, because they were sure we all wanted to eat crickets.

Poilievre believes the government needs to stick to doing its job - managing the economy, managing the budget - and get the hell out of every minute detail of our lives.

[ExFlyer]

55 minutes ago, ironstone said:

And yet, the Liberals are sticking by plan that all vehicles sold in 2035 must be zero emission. This despite warnings from auto industry leaders that it's unrealistic.

So they kind of are saying that EV's are for everyone.

The last time I checked, the cheapest EV sold in Canada (Fiat 500) was twice as expensive as the cheapest ICE (a Nissan)

"The Liberal government previously mandated that 100% of new light-duty car and passenger truck sales be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035, starting with a 20% requirement by 2026

. However, as of early 2026, reports indicate the government is shifting away from this strict 100% mandate toward a revised target of 75%"

 

Edited March 12 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

20 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Liberals announce Bill C-22, one of 4 censorship Bills the Liberals have prioritized, and here's what it will do:

• Anandsagaree can issue a secret order to install devices, equipment and software to spy on you.
• Warrants are no longer needed.
• Electronic service providers are forced to hand over all your data.
• Allows the government to use illegal hacks and leaks to get information. (Like they did during the Convoy)
• No judicial oversight.

In the committee meetings on this Bill, concerns were raised that there is nothing in the Bill preventing them from using this on ordinary citizens, like is being done in the UK under similar legislation, arresting and jailing people for posting memes or opinions the government doesn't like.

Not to worry.

The party that used our Charter to wipe their a$$es with, subjected citizens to years-long lawfare (and lost), got banks to hand over lists of people who donated $5 to a cause they didn't like and then froze their bank accounts, got the media to lie for them about what was going on, the same people who want their own texts evaporated after 15 days.......they promise they won't do that.

All BS!!! 

More conservative paranoia without cause.

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

If everyone had the luxury of hindsight there would be few to no miscalculations of policies.  The fact though is that the NA auto industry is highly integrated and if the dog (US) moves in a certain direction the tail (Canada and Mexico) inevitably follows.

Nobody ever said EV's were for everyone.... with maybe the exception of Trudeau.

If the value of exiting an investment is the best long term move for a company they'll do it every day.  

To try and retain that business and the employment that accompanies it?  Again, this is a hindsight thing so answers become much easier if you know the outcome.  Do I assume you believe that knowing there has been a decline in Canadian auto sector for many years we should have just said 'to hell with it' and pulled the plug on any form of incentives years ago rather than to trying to retain that business?

You can only dance with the girls you brought to the party....who actually were already there dating back 80 years or so.

You'll have to pardon me, but this is freaking hilarious....  and not because it's Poilievre, but the clown does add more humour to it....

A tariff-free auto pact.... seriously!  I wonder if Carney and team have thought about that?  You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Trump has said about our respective auto industries and his belief the US doesn't need Canada or our cars.

Read above..,  This is the exact opposite path Trump wants to take.  I'm sure Poilievre does, but do you honestly believe that the US would be on-board with more auto production in Canada so we can eliminate US tariffs and export more there?  That's comical....and highly uneducated given the what we know about the current trade position of the US.

I know you're seriously anti-liberal but do you not think for maybe even a second that Carney and team have been lobbying for the same?  

I do see merit with this.  It's too bad though he's always a year behind and should have suggested this last year when the tariffs began rather than defaulting to his only schtick of blaming Trudeau and liberals for everything, or waiting until the he needed to pivot because of his political failures.

Again, you're anti-liberal, who has been doing this exact thing for the past year.  The challenge Poilievre has is that he's the forklift driver.  If you want to discuss business partnerships you need to be talking to the principles and influencers, not the forklift drivers.

Makes sense....  Sell more oil at a lower price to US customers rather than getting a longer dollar with other export partners.  I'll defer to what I said a few times above....energy security has been and is a topic of discussion in the trades talks.

Correct, the objective is to argue for free trade.... that's a no-brainer.  I look at it differently.... Carney hasn't 'failed' to negotiate a solution but rather it's very obvious that he won't agree to a trade deal that doesn't benefit Canada.  That's simple business you learn in class 101.  

"Orange man' is bad for Canada....that's become quite obvious hasn't it?  And yes, it does benefit Carney because of his background that Canadian's far prefer over the alternatives background resume of....,???

 

 

I do admire your ability to come with an external excuse for every Liberal failure and an explanation why it should all be ignored, but your ability to step back and see the pattern reflect cognitive and emotional mechanisms at work.

Your meta-cognition needs a lot of work.  🙃

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, LinkSoul60 said:

Something tells me you would be singing loud and proud if the floor crossers were going to the Conservative Party....

Nope.

Sure, there has always been the odd floor crosser here and there on both sides, but it's never been weaponized against citizens to this degree or mattered as much as it does now.

This is one of the problems I've noticed with the Liberal party for a long time.  They take basically "gentlemen's agreements" that have been respected in Canada for a century and abuse them to the point that now we have to make a rule.

[ironstone]

43 minutes ago, LinkSoul60 said:

That's 10 years down the road and said it will be looked at as the industry evolves, just like the removal of 2030 guidelines was. 

Last I checked the China tariff agreement means Canada will allow 49K EV's that are of a maximum $35K price tag which only makes that price range more competitive.  

To each their own in what vehicle you want to purchase but in my travels and as a percentage of the vehicles I notice, EV's without question are growing in popularity.  Keep in mind I live in the Vancouver area so I'm sure climate and demographics have something to do with that.

 

I would assume that auto industry executives have a better idea of what is or isn't realistic, at least better than that of the Liberals.

EV sales were 14.5% of the Canadian market in 2024, then it dropped to 12.1% in 2025. I know that the drop can be attributed in part to the dropping of big taxpayer subsidies for EV buyers but then why should they need these big subsidies in the first place?

Honda is scaling back a bit. 

Zero Interest: Honda cancels 0 line of EVs, takes massive loss

https://driving.ca/auto-news/industry/honda-0-zero-series-acura-rsx-ev-electric-car-line-cancelled-axed-loss

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

All BS!!! 

More conservative paranoia without cause.

Maybe.

Not working out too well for the UK, though.

You'll be safe.  For now.  You're a Liberal cuck.

Better hope the Conservatives never get in, though.

Edited March 12 by Goddess

[Goddess]

22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

All BS!!! 

More conservative paranoia without cause.

 

It's basically legislation we already have, but now they don't need a warrant or any judicial oversight.

Who do you think they're going to use it on?

Because so far, they haven't been interested in even using our existing legislation on the IRGC, Kahalistani gangs, Chinese drug cartels or Indian extortioners.

 

[LinkSoul60]

34 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Poilievre believes the gov't should support the free market by not over-regulating and over-taxing, but not manage the free market or pick winners and losers.  They're clearly bad at it.

It's not just the auto industry the Liberals lost investments in.  It's been every far-left radical idea that's come along, including a cricket factory where 10s of millions went down the toilet, because they were sure we all wanted to eat crickets.

Poilievre believes the government needs to stick to doing its job - managing the economy, managing the budget - and get the hell out of every minute detail of our lives.

It doesn't matter what Poilievre thinks.  He's irrelevant today and soon to be even more irrelevant.  And in the not too distant future.... totally irrelevant and out of politics.