Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ??? (2025)

The Bread Guy said:

Maybe PMMC'll point to the sign
View attachment 93287

Click to expand...

The very fact one of Minister G's first orders of business as Minister of Culture was to jump waaay outside his lane on a nationally sensitive topic should give pause to PM MC and his decision to retain him in cabinet. If MC was decisive, he'd fire him right now. That would set the tone in his government/the country and even perhaps take the secessionist temperature down a degree as a result.

Halifax Tar said:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922715172747215331

Click to expand...

Sounds like someone should stay in his lane as culture minister, which I’m confident he’ll foul up as well.

Halifax Tar said:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922715172747215331

Click to expand...

See Also

Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

God I'm so glad he doesn't have that portfolio anymore. Nonetheless, out of everyone not removed from cabinet, this one bothers me the most by far.

Lumber said:

God I'm so glad he doesn't have that portfolio anymore. Nonetheless, out of everyone not removed from cabinet, this one bothers me the most by far.

Click to expand...

the housing minister didnt have a great start either.

Is another TM expansion our best bet on a new oil pipeline?

ModlrMike said:

If I were Mr Carney, I'd have young Steven in for some one-way counselling. STFU and stay in your lane or I'll give your lane to someone else.

Click to expand...

Likely won't happen as the new PM is still an outsider and Guilbeault is a party loyalist.

Haggis said:

Likely won't happen as the new PM is still an outsider and Guilbeault is a party loyalist.

Click to expand...

And Guilbeault is doing what Carney has been promoting for the last decade or so. As far as I am aware Ottawa was not on the road to Damascus.

Haggis said:

Likely won't happen as the new PM is still an outsider and Guilbeault is a party loyalist.

Click to expand...

Or one of these....

Haggis said:

Likely won't happen as the new PM is still an outsider and Guilbeault is a party loyalist.

Click to expand...

In other words, one has drunk buckets and buckets of Kool-Aide, while the other is still sipping his first glass with a paper straw.

Czech_pivo said:

In other words, one has drunk buckets and buckets of Kool-Aide, while the other is still sipping his first glass with a paper straw.

Click to expand...

I would say that both are immersed in the kool-aid.

suffolkowner said:

Yes, Guilbeault is maybe unlikely to be bought of with appointments

Click to expand...

Perhaps it should be reinforced that his current appointment is subject to cancellation.

suffolkowner said:

the housing minister didnt have a great start either.

Is another TM expansion our best bet on a new oil pipeline?

Click to expand...

"Our"? The proper role of the federal government should be to diminish (minimize) impediments to infrastructure projects and let corporations decide whether an opportunity exists to be exploited profitably.

A compromise cabinet...

Kirk LaPointe: Carney’s Cabinet is built to stabilize, not to soar​

With little time and big expectations, the prime minister leaned on Trudeau’s leftovers to assemble a cabinet better suited to triage than transformation

Few prime ministers have arrived needing a great cabinet quite like Mark Carney.

What became evident Tuesday was that, despite a towering résumé and fresh mandate, he leaned heavily on his unpopular predecessor’s leftovers—less by choice than necessity. With the clock ticking from the moment he became Liberal leader, Carney assembled a cabinet built more for containment than inspiration. It's not yet the army for transformation—just the best field medic unit he could deploy on short notice.

Carney brought back many of the usual suspects mainly as a practical necessity, because he had a matter of days once he was elected Liberal leader to recruit significant numbers to change the channel as he called an election.

The product is a bulbous, two-tiered, gender-equal, 38-person cabinet—an inner circle of 28 full ministers, then a foggier assemblage of 10 ministers of state—to contend with not only the madness of the Donald Trump administration but the exceptional homegrown challenges of affordability, housing, immigration, health care, security and whatever suits your grumpy fancy.

Brad Sallows said:

"Our"? The proper role of the federal government should be to diminish (minimize) impediments to infrastructure projects and let corporations decide whether an opportunity exists to be exploited profitably.

Click to expand...

An exception to that could be where the government determines that certain projects are in the national strategic interest (say diversification of export markets, or redundancy as an economic security measure), but the economics may not be such that, left to their own devices, they’ll presently attract the capital allocation from private industry. What is a good investment for Canada might, for various reasons, not be a sufficiently attractive project due to pure cost, geopolitical risk, etc. The government may determine Canada needs something and that it will insert itself into the process to incentivize or outright drive some or all of it.

Laissez faire will certainly take care of most immediate and evidently profitable needs. It’s also a reality that major projects, crossing geographical and governmental levels of jurisdiction, will face headwinds. If those can be achieved through pure bureaucratic barrier reduction, great. Likely there will be cases where industry will look at potential projects of strategic importance (on very long time scales), and not see a sufficiently secure ROI to be worth the opportunity cost, short of some government guarantees or involvement.

I’ll be curious to hear more about the telegraphed intent to drive exports along expanded infrastructure to an expanded port in Churchill. That could be a large, lengthy, multifaceted project. And definitely one that’s in Canada’s strategic interests.

Brad Sallows said:

"Our"? The proper role of the federal government should be to diminish (minimize) impediments to infrastructure projects and let corporations decide whether an opportunity exists to be exploited profitably.

Click to expand...

That might be fine but then we have to listen to people whining for another 20 yrs about no pipelines being built

ModlrMike said:

Perhaps it should be reinforced that his current appointment is subject to cancellation.

Click to expand...

Like I said I question whether he cares

I'm sure my bias in showing but I think this is what some would call an auspicious start.