Conservative Amendment Defeated

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

My point was PP made a motion in the house...then he had to amend the motion, then he had to amend the amendment.

I think my point would be more obvious if BC were Quebec and this MOU was aimed at the East Coast. I doubt even PP would be fùcking the Parliamentary dog so casually.

Everyone would have voted against it albeit for completely different unstated reasons.... despite however obvious the elephant in the room was.

Like I said, transparency at the most fundamental level is usually crystal clear.

[ExFlyer]

56 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

LOL yes yes, i accept your surrender, i appreciate you acknowledging you were wrong and understand that you're butt hurt over it,   

Poilievre simply outmaneuvered him with this one. Having your cabinet and your colleagues vote against your memorandum of understanding is obviously a blow. He should have thought that out a little more carefully. Sadly he couldn't get them to vote yes because a lot of them seriously disagree with it

WOW...back again LOSER???

PP was not even in the house when the vote went down. LOL

Seems the is the complainative way...be away during votes LOL

Seems they are LOSERS...just like you are a LOSER HA HA HA

BTW...Carney is the choice for PM by more then twice that of PP Le Pew LOL

https://angusreid.org/federal-polling-canada-election-poilievre-prime-minister-carney-trudeau-singh-trump/

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I accept your admission of defeat  

This was definitely a loss for Carney but like I said not exactly a decisive one. But it makes him look bad and it makes it clear to everybody that his cabinet is fractured

HA HA HA. PP was not even in the house for his very own motion and amendment and amendment to the amendment LOL

A LOSER ...like you LOSER HA HA HA

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Wow...back you being a pedophile. 

 

 

You pooping your pants does not represent me being a pedophile. Unfortunately it's your wishful thinking kicking in again

It's mildly disturbing that you associate pooped pants with pedophilia but I'm not here to judge you. I mean I'm probably going to anyway but that's not why I'm here.

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Not sure what you are getting at?

My point was PP made a motion in the house...then he had to amend the motion, then he had to amend the amendment.

 

 

That's normal. He was trying to make it more palatable to the liberals to vote to approve their own mou.

But they just couldn't  No matter what the liberal caucus is so fractured over this that they couldn't even vote in favor of the language of carney's own m o u

it's a major slap in the face for carney, 

[CdnFox]

41 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

WOW...back again LOSER???

Sure! You're hilarious and free comedy is always welcome  

I think the funniest part of this is you didn't understand that this was a major blow to Carney and you were being all smug and happy thinking that this was some sort of victory for him   LOLOLOL 

Everyone knew it was a slap for carney except you  

You really have no idea how poltiics works, and watching you as you suddenly realize it was  a BAD day for the libs is beyond priceless   

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You pooping your pants does not represent me being a pedophile. Unfortunately it's your wishful thinking kicking in again

It's mildly disturbing that you associate pooped pants with pedophilia but I'm not here to judge you. I mean I'm probably going to anyway but that's not why I'm here.

That's normal. He was trying to make it more palatable to the liberals to vote to approve their own mou.

But they just couldn't  No matter what the liberal caucus is so fractured over this that they couldn't even vote in favor of the language of carney's own m o u

it's a major slap in the face for ...

Awww poor LOSER

I associate your being a pedophile with your continued claim I am a teenager, 12 year old, 15 year old and child and you keep wanting to play with me.

He was trying to make it more palatable to the complainatives that do not understand  LOL.   He made a motion, he had to amend the motion, then he had to amend the amendment...What a LOSER LOL

So yeah it was "it's a major slap in the face for" all Canadians that think PP is actually a leader. That is why most Canadians feel Carney is a better choice for MP than PP Le Pew by more than double LOL

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure! You're hilarious and free comedy is always welcome  

I think the funniest part of this is you didn't understand that this was a major blow to Carney and you were being all smug and happy thinking that this was some sort of victory for him   LOLOLOL 

Everyone knew it was a slap for carney except you  

You really have no idea how poltiics works, and watching you as you suddenly realize it was  a BAD day for the libs is beyond priceless   

WOW..the LOSER is back.

Once again with nothing.

As usual...you LOSE, Carney won HA HA HA

[Shady]

Sad.

 

[Nationalist]

And it begins. The Libbies have no intention of allowing Canada to make rational use of our natural resources. 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

Sad.

 

No, they voted against a motion by PP that was amended and the amendment was amended so... they voted against nonsense by  PP...as he is so apt to produce. LOL.

I cannot understand the complaintive mindset that they are surprised everyone in parliament except complainatives voted against a motion so poorly written that they had to amend it and then had to amend the amendment and then... the leader,  PP, was not even in the house for the vote!!! LOL LOL LOL

Wonder why they are LOSERS???? And the complainatives on this forum think they won something????

Man, a new leader and party restructure is sorely needed if they want any credibility at all.

 

Edited December 11, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Shady]

38 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

No, they voted against a motion by PP that was amended and the amendment was amended so... they voted against nonsense by  PP...as he is so apt to produce. LOL.

I cannot understand the complaintive mindset that they are surprised everyone in parliament except complainatives voted against a motion so poorly written that they had to amend it and then had to amend the amendment and then... the leader,  PP, was not even in the house for the vote!!! LOL LOL LOL

Wonder why they are LOSERS???? And the complainatives on this forum think they won something????

Man, a new leader and party restructure is sorely needed if they want any credibility at all.

 

The motion was to support a pipeline to the pacific.  Regardless, no, it's Canada that loses, and has lost over the last decade with terrible Liberal policies that have made Canada much worse.  I don't know why you think that policies that make Canada worse is good for Canada, it's very odd.  You and your ilk have ruined the country, yet you clap for the Liberals like trained seals.

[ExFlyer]

59 minutes ago, Shady said:

The motion was to support a pipeline to the pacific.  Regardless, no, it's Canada that loses, and has lost over the last decade with terrible Liberal policies that have made Canada much worse.  I don't know why you think that policies that make Canada worse is good for Canada, it's very odd.  You and your ilk have ruined the country, yet you clap for the Liberals like trained seals.

You are aware that the feds and Alberta signed an agreement to build a pipeline???

The complainative motion was just to reiterate something that already existed but they forgot stuff and had to amend it to include those things and then realized they forgot more stuff and had to amend the amendment?

And then...PP decided not to be in the house for the vote LOL.  Yup, they cannot even play well with each other HA HA HA

Seems the ones clapping like trained seals is the conservative supporters. I mean really, making a motion (and then having to correct the mistakes in the motion) to state exactly what has already been agreed upon and signed seems kinda dumb but, hey, why should reality affect the conservative foolishness LOL LOL LOL

Edited December 11, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Shady]

8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

You are aware that the feds and Alberta signed an agreement to build a pipeline???

The complainative motion was just to reiterate something that already existed but they forgot stuff and had to amend it to include those things and then realized they forgot more stuff and had to amend the amendment?

And then...PP decided not to be in the house for the vote LOL.  Yup, they cannot even play well with each other HA HA HA

Seems the ones clapping like trained seals is the conservative supporters. I mean really, making a motion (and then having to correct the mistakes in the motion) to state exactly what has already been agreed upon and signed seems kinda dumb but, hey, why should reality affect the conservative foolishness LOL LOL LOL

It's not an agreement, it's a memorandum of understanding.  You really do fall for all of their symbolism huh?  What a rube! LOL

 

[ExFlyer]

8 minutes ago, Shady said:

It's not an agreement, it's a memorandum of understanding.  You really do fall for all of their symbolism huh?  What a rube! LOL

 

OK...a memo of understanding.??? Tell the Alberta Premier. LOL

Keep doing your trained sea l thing...it suits you LOL

The compalinative motion was a farce as was PP's decision not to be in the house to vote for his own motion...a LOSER

"Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a form of agreement that outlines shared goals and expectations, but it's typically a preliminary, non-binding document setting the stage for a future, formal contract, though it can become legally binding if the parties intend it to be and its terms are clear enough, according to sources like University of Toronto, Divorce the Smartway, and CPDonline.ca. It details the framework for collaboration before specifics are ironed out in a legally enforceable contract, but courts may enforce it as a contract if intent and clarity are present. "

 

 

Edited December 11, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Shady]

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

"Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a form of agreement that outlines shared goals and expectations, 

Yes, and it's completely non-binding.  It's just a document of agreed understanding, goals, expectations, with no binding follow through, no timetable of dates, progress, etc.

[Legato]

10 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

OK...a memo of understanding.??? Tell the Alberta Premier. LOL

Keep doing your trained sea l thing...it suits you LOL

The compalinative motion was a farce as was PP's decision not to be in the house to vote for his own motion...a LOSER

"Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a form of agreement that outlines shared goals and expectations, but it's typically a preliminary, non-binding document setting the stage for a future, formal contract, though it can become legally binding if the parties intend it to be and its terms are clear enough, according to sources like University of Toronto, Divorce the Smartway, and CPDonline.ca. It details the framework for collaboration before specifics are ironed out in a legally enforceable contract, but courts may enforce it as a contract if intent and clarity are present. "

 

 

Then why vote against a non-binding agreement?

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, Shady said:

Yes, and it's completely non-binding.  It's just a document of agreed understanding, goals, expectations, with no binding follow through, no timetable of dates, progress, etc.

Andrew Scheer popping out from behind a curtain is the perfect metaphor for the entire Conservative Party, hiding, performing, and pretending they have leadership when they don’t.

And right beside him?

Pierre Poilievre, the angriest man in Canada, backed almost exclusively by the angriest people in Canada… and bots.

Let’s be honest:

Scheer already failed as leader.

Poilievre is failing while his poll numbers keep dropping.

And their bench is so empty the party keeps recycling the same faces like a sitcom that refuses to accept it's been cancelled.

The Conservatives don’t have “up-and-coming talent.”

They have reruns.

Scheer hides behind curtains.

Poilievre hides behind hashtags.

Their MPs hide behind slogans.

And their supporters hide behind anonymous usernames shouting into the void.

Who’s left cheering for them?

The permanently outraged.

The chronically online.

The terminally misinformed.

And whatever bot farm is running overnight overtime shifts in Tulsa and Moscow.

The average Canadian isn’t buying it.

They’re tired of the anger.

Tired of the fear marketing.

Tired of the endless screaming about everything and solutions for nothing.

And here’s the kicker:

The Conservatives keep losing because they have absolutely nobody else to put forward.

Every time they try to showcase “leadership,” it’s just another busted sequel:

Scheer 2: Electric Hide-a-Loo

Poilievre: Rise of the Rant

They don’t grow.

They don’t evolve.

They don’t learn.

They just… yell louder.

And as long as the party keeps putting the same failed leaders at the front, with the same failed ideas and the same failed rage-bait marketing, the outcome will stay the same:

Canada votes NO.

Over and over and over again.

The Conservatives aren’t losing because Canadians don’t understand them.

They’re losing because Canadians understand them perfectly.

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, Legato said:

Then why vote against a non-binding agreement?

Why vote for a nonsensical motion that had to be changed twice??

And really, think about what you said...who made the motion...for a non binding agreement that is between the feds and a Province??? The vote would not have made Alberta legally accept.

21 minutes ago, Shady said:

Yes, and it's completely non-binding.  It's just a document of agreed understanding, goals, expectations, with no binding follow through, no timetable of dates, progress, etc.

And what would the vote had done then??

It was show business at it's worst LOL

[Shady]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

Andrew Scheer popping out from behind a curtain is the perfect metaphor for the entire Conservative Party, hiding, performing, and pretending they have leadership when they don’t.

And right beside him?

Pierre Poilievre, the angriest man in Canada, backed almost exclusively by the angriest people in Canada… and bots.

Let’s be honest:

Scheer already failed as leader.

Poilievre is failing while his poll numbers keep dropping.

And their bench is so empty the party keeps recycling the same faces like a sitcom that refuses to accept it's been cancelled.

The Conservatives don’t have “up-and-coming talent.”

They have reruns.

Scheer hides behind curtains.

Poilievre hides behind hashtags.

Their MPs hide behind slogans.

And their supporters hide behind anonymous usernames shouting into the void.

Who’s left cheering for them?

The permanently outraged.

The chronically online.

The terminally misinformed.

And whatever bot farm is running overnight overtime shifts in Tulsa and Moscow.

The average Canadian isn’t buying it.

They’re tired of the anger.

Tired of the fear marketing.

Tired of the endless screaming about everything and solutions for nothing.

And here’s the kicker:

The Conservatives keep losing because they have absolutely nobody else to put forward.

Every time they try to showcase “leadership,” it’s just another busted sequel:

Scheer 2: Electric Hide-a-Loo

Poilievre: Rise of the Rant

They don’t grow.

They don’t evolve.

They don’t learn.

They just… yell louder.

And as long as the party keeps putting the same failed leaders at the front, with the same failed ideas and the same failed rage-bait marketing, the outcome will stay the same:

Canada votes NO.

Over and over and over again.

The Conservatives aren’t losing because Canadians don’t understand them.

They’re losing because Canadians understand them perfectly.

Actually, Conservatives won the popular votes in 2019 and 2021.  If not for Trump irrationally scaring boomers, the Conservatives would have easily won the last election.  Regardless, it's not the Conservatives losing, it's the country that's losing, as the same terrible economic policies wreak havoc on the country.  Our GDP per capita used to be equal to the United States.  Now it's 40% less.  That's just one example of the devastation the Liberals have caused.  But I see you've moved off the ridiculous memo of understanding, and now arguing a completely different subject.  Typical liberal voter.

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Why vote for a nonsensical motion that had to be changed twice??

And really, think about what you said...who made the motion...for a non binding agreement that is between the feds and a Province??? The vote would not have made Alberta legally accept.

And what would the vote had done then??

It was show business at it's worst LOL

But at least it would have put them on the parliamentary record for voting in favour of a pipeline.  Instead they voted against their own MOU! LOL!

[Legato]

16 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Why vote for a nonsensical motion that had to be changed twice??

And really, think about what you said...who made the motion...for a non binding agreement that is between the feds and a Province??? The vote would not have made Alberta legally accept.

And what would the vote had done then??

It was show business at it's worst LOL

Then why vote against their own MOU. The show business showed the Liberals to total bumpkins, which was the obvious ploy.

[ExFlyer]

51 minutes ago, Shady said:

Actually, Conservatives won the popular votes in 2019 and 2021.  If not for Trump irrationally scaring boomers, the Conservatives would have easily won the last election.  Regardless, it's not the Conservatives losing, it's the country that's losing, as the same terrible economic policies wreak havoc on the country.  Our GDP per capita used to be equal to the United States.  Now it's 40% less.  That's just one example of the devastation the Liberals have caused.  But I see you've moved off the ridiculous memo of understanding, and now arguing a completely different subject.  Typical liberal voter.

But at least it would have put them on the parliamentary record for voting in favour of a pipeline.  Instead they voted against their own MOU! LOL!

Yup. You clearly understand that PP pooched and totally miscalculated Trudeau's departure and Trumps threats.

I hope you also understand that the USA is not Canada and we have never been equal or even close in GDP.

Nope...they voted on a complainative motion, not the MOU.

The MOU is already a done deal between the government and Alberta.

What is it with you trained seals that you canto get that?.....Alberta and the government have an accepted MOU., no need to vot eon the MOU    LOL LOL LOL

Edited December 11, 2025 by ExFlyer

[ExFlyer]

34 minutes ago, Legato said:

Then why vote against their own MOU. The show business showed the Liberals to total bumpkins, which was the obvious ploy.

Alberta and the government have an accepted MOU, no need to vote on the MOU    LOL LOL LOL

I cannot believe you really think that an accepted MOU between the province and the feds needed a vote in the legislature ?? HA HA HA

[Legato]

25 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Alberta and the government have an accepted MOU, no need to vote on the MOU    LOL LOL LOL

I cannot believe you really think that an accepted MOU between the province and the feds needed a vote in the legislature ?? HA HA HA

The vote was on a conservative motion for a pipeline. The MOU is about a pipeline. Same thing.

Try engaging comprehension it does help.

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, Legato said:

The vote was on a conservative motion for a pipeline. The MOU is about a pipeline. Same thing.

Try engaging comprehension it does help.

Are you berserk??? Are you trying to make some sort of point if you say it is "the Same thing"??? 

So, what was the "motion"?  The text please?? Show me you know what you are pleading for

Bottom line...conservatives lost and PP left the house to save face LOL LOL LOL

 

Edited December 11, 2025 by ExFlyer

[Legato]

14 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Are you berserk??? Are you trying to make some sort of point if you say it is "the Same thing"??? 

So, what was the "motion"?  The text please?? Show me you know what you are pleading for

Bottom line...conservatives lost and PP left the house to save face LOL LOL LOL

 

You really are an oddball.

That the House supports the construction of at least one pipeline enabling the export of a million barrels a day of Alberta oil from a deepwater port in British Columbia, through an appropriate adjustment to the legislation that bans most oil tankers from the area off the northern coast of British Columbia, while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous people. 

[ExFlyer]

Just now, Legato said:

You really are an oddball.

That the House supports the construction of at least one pipeline enabling the export of a million barrels a day of Alberta oil from a deepwater port in British Columbia, through an appropriate adjustment to the legislation that bans most oil tankers from the area off the northern coast of British Columbia, while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous people. 

It is a simple question....Provide the text...not just a sentence you made up.

The entire text and the reference please. 

[Legato]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

It is a simple question....Provide the text...not just a sentence you made up.

The entire text and the reference please. 

The most recent significant motion in the Canadian House of Commons was a Conservative motion concerning a pipeline to the B.C. coast, which was defeated by a vote of 196 to 139 on Tuesday evening, December 9, 2025. 

The motion, put forward by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, had the following