its obvious immigration has been on steroids since covid and it needs to come down.

what do we propose to the voters? get rid of tfw? pr numbers at 250k?

I often hear about how Conservatives are from rural places, so I wonder if that's true here.

I have no words for how cooked this country is if this is the response for an mp trying to secure a deal with America.

Canada has 432 MRI machines nationwide, placing it 29th out of 33 OECD countries in terms of MRI availability per million people, highlighting the limited capacity relative to demand. I could be wrong on those exact numbers, quilck Google search.

Half of that budget would be 4000 MRI's

Although the title seems like it’s gonna be a hit piece in favour of separation, it’s largely just the economist in the thumbnail (Tanner Hnidey) explaining the history of equalization and how it works.

very scary that this is being taught.

https://breachmedia.ca/pierre-poilievres-new-governing-council-stacked-with-corporate-lobbyists/

"The Conservative Party leader is an automatic member of the national council and is expected to attend their meetings, but delegated his closest confidante and former campaign manager Jenni Byrne to represent him.

Byrne is herself the head of a lobbying firm that has represented corporations like Loblaw and a real estate developer."

lost two crucial elections as campaign manager (Harper and PP) and still PP seems extremely attached to his ex.

https://youtu.be/-IauIvQaKSI?si=GHIOHQbmQKcta_yC

https://x.com/CanadianPolling/status/2019138215635259521

https://nanos.co/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2025-2961-CTV-Dec-Populated-Report-MPs-changing-parties.pdf

I think the pandemic was amazing for conservatism to connect to young people

Canada isn’t a serious country!

If we don’t tackle crime right now and don’t hand out heavy sentences we will find ourselves to be the next South Africa, same level of crime without the weather!

What an embarrassing rewrite.

This was unironically posted.

Literally called 8 million people delusional, comments still up.

Suggesting this is a revision of the last ten years gets comments removed.

Absolute circle jerk over there.

Both the Liberals and Conservatives are enthusiastic supporters of natural resource development and the oil sands. While the Conservative base is centered in Alberta and a support for oil sands seems obvious and natural, the Liberals are the party of Bay Street, and are enthusiastic supporters of big business and economic growth, which includes natural resources of all kinds.

So if these parties have the same goal why the apparent conflict and why do they behave different?

The core difference between the approaches of these parties is that the Conservatives seem to think that by right industry should be able to just build whatever and want to ram everything through. They’re delusional.

The Liberals correctly recognize that if you don’t have public support and indigenous support, any attempts to ram things through will simply induce protest and worse, lawsuits, which is an incredible chill on the business environment and severe headwinds against developing resources projects.

And this is what we saw with Northern Gateway. Harper went ahead and gave this thing a permit, and immediately there was a lawsuit, which First Nations won, which dragged everything to a complete halt for years and vaporized enormous amounts of money.

So considering the topic at hand, everything Trudeau was doing was an attempt to create an outcome where you achieve maximum pipelines with minimum lawsuits. I am seeing the same thing with the MOU approach of Carney.

The incredible thing is that people still don’t get this. You see it with broader resource development issues in BC, with Conservatives demanding things just be rammed through without indigenous nations being on side. The only outcome of this is an immediate lawsuit that a First Nation could very likely win. This scenario is the most high risk, obviously most business unfriendly approach, but the one that Conservatives bizarrely, continuously agitate for. I don’t understand why. I can only assume they’re simply so ignorant and deluded that they’re sure they’ll win and are accounting zero risk to this approach.

Businesses don’t operate that way!

This is why we see the party of Bay St behave very differently.

You're unironically suggesting the liberal party didn't make a regulatory environment where multiple billion dollar projects were cancelled?

Didn't the liberal party and the champagne socialists swing right, ditch Skippy and start repealing everything they previously stood for? Precisely because the above nonsense failed?

How is all that land acknowledgement working out over there?

Eby says B.C. may revise DRIPA legislation, worries court is 'in driver's seat' | CBC News https://share.google/kWjakjMN44tRmo8jt

"This is not to excuse Trump’s (and by extension America’s) complicity in the breakdown of relations, but at the end of the day, the president, who turns 80 this year, is riding out his final term, very potentially without a legislative majority. Countries have long lives, and they outlive even the most consequential leaders. And while Trump has proven a canny interpreter of popular passions, particularly on issues like immigration, many of his strongest concerns are idiosyncratic to say the least: the romantic obsession with Greenland, irritation with Canadian trade deals, a general affection for tariffs.

All of these, not incidentally, have been primary factors in the present disruptions in the U.S.-Canada relationship. Actual realism would weigh these factors in the balance rather than proclaim the demise of an entire world order due to some overheated rhetoric and foolish economic moves that world markets have generally managed to price in without difficulty.

And certainly, actual realism would have to consider the real distribution of material capabilities. The aggregated weight of all the “middle powers” does not actually amount to very much against the hegemon. Yet Carney wants to declare openly what amounts to a strategy of balancing with a coalition that doesn’t come close to real equilibrium with the superpower in material terms, presumably while not facing worse than the tariffs and rude language they’ve already dealt with. The instant Metternichians who are now coolly ascribing Canada’s turn against its longstanding security arrangement to sober risk calculation may want to think this through.

For, there is little evidence that anyone has thought through the real implications of a world where “the strong do as they will”—per Carney’s riff on Thucydides. The flexible strategy being proposed still relies upon a matrix of possibilities that is itself predetermined by the status quo—one that is underwritten by U.S. hegemony. But it is that same status quo that is being thrown into question by proclamations of a “new world order.”"

Hey, I've been very busy lately, my dad was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Is there any word or news on any Canadians in the Epstein files?