herbie Posted February 1 Report Posted February 1 Isn't it funny how everything the carbon tax was blamed for increasing the price of went up since removing it? 1 2 Quote
August1991 Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 On 1/31/2026 at 10:28 AM, ExFlyer said: There were about 2500 people....is that 95% of the conservative members?? The Conservatives are celebrating Pierre Poilievre’s 87.4% “victory” like they just won the Stanley Cup. But here’s the part they don’t want you to know: This wasn’t an election. This was a confidence review run by party HQ. .... Agreed. 1 Quote
Barquentine Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 On 1/31/2026 at 10:37 AM, John Stone said: Historic - 95 percent turnout. Historic in what way? Democracy Inc. eoStnsrodpg22hufu1f534a5a0uul0iuh63mu2078a4290t6f06f14122fl0 · THERE SEEMS TO BE CONFUSION ABOUT THE NUMBERS AT THE CONVENTION For the 2026 Conservative Party of Canada National Convention held in Calgary from January 29–31, approximately 2,600 delegates were in attendance. Specific details regarding the delegation include: Total Votes Cast: The party reported that 2,588 delegates cast a ballot during the leadership review. Turnout: This represented approximately 95% of the registered delegates. Theoretical Maximum: UNDER PARTY RULES, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 4,000 DELEGATES IF EVERY SPOT FOR EACH OF CANADA’S 343 RIDINGS had been filled (each riding is allotted at least 12 delegate spots). For historical context, the previous federal Conservative convention held in Calgary in 2013 saw a record turnout of approximately 3,000 members and observers. SO, BASICALLY, 1400 DELEGATES DID NOT ATTEND. WHY ? 1 Quote
John Stone Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 3 hours ago, Barquentine said: Historic in what way? Democracy Inc. eoStnsrodpg22hufu1f534a5a0uul0iuh63mu2078a4290t6f06f14122fl0 · THERE SEEMS TO BE CONFUSION ABOUT THE NUMBERS AT THE CONVENTION For the 2026 Conservative Party of Canada National Convention held in Calgary from January 29–31, approximately 2,600 delegates were in attendance. Specific details regarding the delegation include: Total Votes Cast: The party reported that 2,588 delegates cast a ballot during the leadership review. Turnout: This represented approximately 95% of the registered delegates. Theoretical Maximum: UNDER PARTY RULES, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 4,000 DELEGATES IF EVERY SPOT FOR EACH OF CANADA’S 343 RIDINGS had been filled (each riding is allotted at least 12 delegate spots). For historical context, the previous federal Conservative convention held in Calgary in 2013 saw a record turnout of approximately 3,000 members and observers. SO, BASICALLY, 1400 DELEGATES DID NOT ATTEND. WHY ? PP's turnout in his recent leader review set a record with 88 percent of eligible delegates voting in favor of his continuing tenure. The previous record set by Harper was 85 percent in 2005. 1 Quote
I am Groot Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 22 hours ago, ExFlyer said: When will you people get it??? Do you really want a government to put price control on everything?? He cannot control the price of things we import. "Despite being a major agricultural exporter, Canada relies heavily on imports for specific items, including 90% of leafy greens, 75% of fresh fruits, and roughly 50% of vegetables, with the U.S. providing the majority" And yet, despite the US dollar going down over the last year, our food inflation is much higher than in the US or indeed in countries where they import an even greater percentage of their food. 20 hours ago, herbie said: Isn't it funny how everything the carbon tax was blamed for increasing the price of went up since removing it? It hasn't been removed. It's simply been pushed downstream. 1 Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
ExFlyer Posted February 2 Author Report Posted February 2 5 minutes ago, I am Groot said: And yet, despite the US dollar going down over the last year, our food inflation is much higher than in the US or indeed in countries where they import an even greater percentage of their food. It hasn't been removed. It's simply been pushed downstream. Yes, the US dollar has gone down but so has our Canadian dollar (too closely tied to the US dollar) and...the exchange rate of 30+% has not changed. We do not have the capacity or usage as the US so yes, their food costs are lower, primarily by volume usage alone. The carbon tax has been removed. The Industrial carbon tax remained but as previously been discussed "Data from economists, including analysis of Statistics Canada figures, suggests the overall impact of the carbon tax on food inflation is less than 1%." (from AI question) 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
I am Groot Posted February 2 Report Posted February 2 5 hours ago, ExFlyer said: We do not have the capacity or usage as the US so yes, their food costs are lower, primarily by volume usage alone. That suggests why their food prices are lower, not why their food inflation is lower. This, suggests its a combination of taxes and regulations. https://westerngrocer.com/canada-has-a-policy-driven-food-inflation-problem/ 1 Quote "A civilization is not destroyed by wicked men; it is destroyed by weak men who cannot defend what is good.” — G. K. Chesterton
ExFlyer Posted February 3 Author Report Posted February 3 (edited) 13 hours ago, I am Groot said: That suggests why their food prices are lower, not why their food inflation is lower. This, suggests its a combination of taxes and regulations. https://westerngrocer.com/canada-has-a-policy-driven-food-inflation-problem/ Inflation is a lot more than just food. If you have 400 million people spending vs 40 million...your inflation statistics will certainly be lower. You also realize the article you reference was before the carbon tax was removed and is using 2025 stats? "As of late 2025 and early 2026, Canada has generally experienced lower headline inflation (around 2.36%–2.5% in late 2025) compared to the U.S. (approx. 2.68%–2.7% in late 2025). While both nations face sticky service-sector inflation, Canada’s rates have shown faster deceleration in core measures, whereas the U.S. has experienced more persistent upward pressure" " Why Canada's Food Costs are Higher Market Concentration: Canada’s grocery sector is more consolidated, giving major chains more pricing power than the more competitive U.S. market. Import Reliance: Canada relies heavily on imported produce during winter months, making it more vulnerable to global supply shocks and a weaker Canadian dollar. Policy Impacts: Structural issues like interprovincial trade barriers, regulatory costs, and carbon pricing embedded in the supply chain contribute to persistent price growth. Climate & Drought: Severe drought in Western Canada has led to lower yields and a spike in prices for domestic staples like beef (up 17%) and wheat. Temporary Tax Effects: The recent 2024–2025 GST holiday in Canada led to price volatility; once the tax break ended, prices for many items surged as they returned to normal levels. Budgetary Impact Spending Share: Groceries represent 11% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) basket in Canada, compared to just 8% in the U.S.. Household Strain: Lower-income Canadian households spend roughly 14% of their total budget on food, making the current inflation spike particularly acute. 2026 Outlook Experts from Dalhousie University’s Agri-Food Analytics Lab forecast that Canadian food prices could increase by another 3% to 5% throughout 2026, though the Bank of Canada expects some easing as the year progresses. Edited February 3 by ExFlyer 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
ExFlyer Posted February 3 Author Report Posted February 3 (edited) 23 hours ago, John Stone said: PP's turnout in his recent leader review set a record with 88 percent of eligible delegates voting in favor of his continuing tenure. The previous record set by Harper was 85 percent in 2005. Only 3000 were invited and had to pay $1000 to attend..... "As of the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, there were nearly 679,000 eligible members" Edited February 3 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
WestCanMan Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 On 1/31/2026 at 5:00 AM, ExFlyer said: Good news for the Liberals LOL Good news for the Libs is that the CBC still belongs to them. 1 Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
WestCanMan Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 On 2/2/2026 at 2:14 AM, Barquentine said: SO, BASICALLY, 1400 DELEGATES DID NOT ATTEND. WHY ? For the same reason that you wouldn't have to go vote at the LPOC convention if it was between an ex-convict pedophile with a summer home in China and a Canadian veteran. You know the pedophile will win 95%-5%, even if he can't make it because he's in China with their minster of propaganda, so why bother going all the way there? 1 Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
ExFlyer Posted February 3 Author Report Posted February 3 (edited) 38 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: Good news for the Libs is that the CBC still belongs to them. Good news for the Libs is that less than 3000 delegates out of over 650,000 card carrying conservative voted to keep PP LOL Edited February 3 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
ExFlyer Posted February 3 Author Report Posted February 3 Cut and paste for elsewhere: WHAT POILIEVRE NEVER SAYS Pierre Poilievre talks a lot. About “freedom.” About “gatekeepers.” About “common sense.” Mostly, about how angry you should be. What matters more is what he never says. He never says who pays. Every promise of tax cuts. Every attack on “waste.” Every vow to shrink government. He never explains which services disappear when the math stops working. Healthcare? Seniors’ supports? Transfers to provinces? Silence. Anger is cheaper than arithmetic. He never says who benefits. When he attacks regulation and “bureaucrats,” he never names the corporations that profit when rules vanish. Deregulation is never abstract — it always enriches someone. He just doesn’t want you looking there. He never says climate change is a crisis. He dodges with euphemisms and slogans, because admitting reality would require adult policy — and populism collapses the moment sacrifice enters the conversation. He never says how complex systems actually work. Housing isn’t fixed by yelling at mayors. Inflation isn’t defeated by insults. Healthcare doesn’t improve through culture wars. Complexity doesn’t mobilize rage, so it’s edited out. He never says what happens after the slogans. “Common sense” is not a governing strategy. “Axe the tax” is not an economic plan. “Freedom” without guardrails is just power for the already powerful. He never walks you past the applause line — that’s where the cracks show. He never says what he’ll do if it fails. Serious leaders talk about trade-offs, contingencies, and unintended consequences. Poilievre speaks in absolutes. Certainty feels good. It’s also deeply unserious. He never says who’s being used as a distraction. Immigrants. Journalists. Academics. “Elites.” The targets shift. The function doesn’t: keep people looking sideways instead of upward. And he never says what kind of country he actually wants. Not in concrete terms. Not in values that survive scrutiny. Because once you define the destination, people can decide whether they want to go there. Populism isn’t about answers. It’s about noise filling the space where answers should be. Listen carefully. What’s missing tells you more than what’s shouted. He never says, “This will be hard.” Because honesty doesn’t trend. Real governing involves limits, trade-offs, and imperfect outcomes — things adults understand and demagogues avoid. So instead of preparing people for reality, he prepares them for disappointment, then blames someone else when slogans collapse under the weight of governing. Pay attention to the silences. That’s where the real agenda lives. 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
John Stone Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 2 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Only 3000 were invited and had to pay $1000 to attend..... "As of the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, there were nearly 679,000 eligible members" ........... what is the norm at a convention ........... doubt its 700K? Nah, the guy did good - winds at his back. 1 Quote
Legato Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 31 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Cut and paste for elsewhere: WHAT POILIEVRE NEVER SAYS Pierre Poilievre talks a lot. About “freedom.” About “gatekeepers.” About “common sense.” Mostly, about how angry you should be. What matters more is what he never says. He never says who pays. Every promise of tax cuts. Every attack on “waste.” Every vow to shrink government. He never explains which services disappear when the math stops working. Healthcare? Seniors’ supports? Transfers to provinces? Silence. Anger is cheaper than arithmetic. He never says who benefits. When he attacks regulation and “bureaucrats,” he never names the corporations that profit when rules vanish. Deregulation is never abstract — it always enriches someone. He just doesn’t want you looking there. He never says climate change is a crisis. He dodges with euphemisms and slogans, because admitting reality would require adult policy — and populism collapses the moment sacrifice enters the conversation. He never says how complex systems actually work. Housing isn’t fixed by yelling at mayors. Inflation isn’t defeated by insults. Healthcare doesn’t improve through culture wars. Complexity doesn’t mobilize rage, so it’s edited out. He never says what happens after the slogans. “Common sense” is not a governing strategy. “Axe the tax” is not an economic plan. “Freedom” without guardrails is just power for the already powerful. He never walks you past the applause line — that’s where the cracks show. He never says what he’ll do if it fails. Serious leaders talk about trade-offs, contingencies, and unintended consequences. Poilievre speaks in absolutes. Certainty feels good. It’s also deeply unserious. He never says who’s being used as a distraction. Immigrants. Journalists. Academics. “Elites.” The targets shift. The function doesn’t: keep people looking sideways instead of upward. And he never says what kind of country he actually wants. Not in concrete terms. Not in values that survive scrutiny. Because once you define the destination, people can decide whether they want to go there. Populism isn’t about answers. It’s about noise filling the space where answers should be. Listen carefully. What’s missing tells you more than what’s shouted. He never says, “This will be hard.” Because honesty doesn’t trend. Real governing involves limits, trade-offs, and imperfect outcomes — things adults understand and demagogues avoid. So instead of preparing people for reality, he prepares them for disappointment, then blames someone else when slogans collapse under the weight of governing. Pay attention to the silences. That’s where the real agenda lives. Why this deep ingrained fear of Poilievre? 1 Quote
eyeball Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 27 minutes ago, Legato said: Why this deep ingrained fear of Poilievre? The Freakers Ball of conspiracy nuts, crackpots and MAGA at the core of Poilievre's base of support. His policies will always need to contain a certain amount of red meat for their benefit. 2 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Politics1990 Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 (edited) the convention was laughable the cons just don't get it the dude is unlikeable as hell to the general public.. also Daniele smith whining about libs not giving ab anything and why they separating was laughable .the damn jt gov bought them a pipeline lol. at same time she's sucking up th carney as much as possible lol Edited February 3 by Politics1990 2 Quote
ExFlyer Posted February 3 Author Report Posted February 3 (edited) 2 hours ago, Legato said: Why this deep ingrained fear of Poilievre? Fear?? Fear??? AHA AHA AHA What has PP got to be afeared about? Oh yeah...nothing, except maybe his groupies that fall all over him and may bump into me No fear...just playing devils advocate to some of the PPers like you on this forum LOL Edited February 3 by ExFlyer Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
ExFlyer Posted February 3 Author Report Posted February 3 2 hours ago, John Stone said: ........... what is the norm at a convention ........... doubt its 700K? Nah, the guy did good - winds at his back. 1 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to tell me what mine should be.
Legato Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 1 hour ago, eyeball said: The Freakers Ball of conspiracy nuts, crackpots and MAGA at the core of Poilievre's base of support. His policies will always need to contain a certain amount of red meat for their benefit. Are you another one of weak constitution types who easily succumb to the daily fear mongering? 1 Quote
Gaétan Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 They did that in Alberta so that Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes wouldn’t go vote 1 Quote
eyeball Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 5 minutes ago, Legato said: Are you another one of weak constitution types who easily succumb to the daily fear mongering? No man, it's the complete opposite, I laugh at it. That might make me pee on occassion but that's to be expected at my age so... 1 Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Legato Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 1 minute ago, eyeball said: No man, it's the complete opposite, I laugh at it. That might make me pee on occassion but that's to be expected at my age so... Nice cop out, the fear is palpable, please don't follow our flybaby's lack of logic. 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 On 2/1/2026 at 5:17 PM, herbie said: Isn't it funny how everything the carbon tax was blamed for increasing the price of went up since removing it? That's because all the Carbon tax has not been removed, the FEDERAL consumer portion was removed, not sure if the provincial taxes were removed in BC/ Quebec...that being said the industrial carbon tax remains, along with a long list of federal/ provincial taxes, which add a large chunk of the price of fuels...All of which add to the price of everything... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted February 3 Report Posted February 3 3 hours ago, Legato said: Why this deep ingrained fear of Poilievre? Because he eats liberals form breakfast, lunch and supper....The liberal propaganda machine is hard at work...which kudo's to the liberals it is one thing they are good at... 1 Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.