Only In Canada | Facebook - "I don’t understand why Mark Carney lies about things that are so easily fact checked. For example, six weeks ago Carney insisted that he had nothing to do with Brookfield moving its headquarters from Toronto to New York. But he was chairman of Brookfield at the time of the decision, and he signed the letter to shareholders announcing that the decision was unanimous. So he was obviously involved. The move was just a technical thing that didn’t effect operations. So why would Carney lie about it? Then a week later, Carney said that he had helped Finance Minister Paul Martin balance the budget between 1995 and 1998. But Carney wasn’t even working with the federal government during those years. He was working for Goldman Sachs, an American investment bank. Carney didn’t join the Finance Department until 2004, when Canada’s budget had already been balanced for six years. So why would he tell such an obvious lie? Then Carney claimed that as Governor of the Bank of Canada in 2008, he saved Canada’s economy during the financial crisis. But in fact, Carney didn’t make any political or fiscal decisions. He was a senior bureaucrat who followed direction from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. And on Thursday Carney went so far as to say we avoided a recession in 2008-2009 thanks to him. But Carney himself, as Governor of the Bank of Canada, said this on February 10, 2009: “We are now in recession, with GDP projected to fall by 1.2% this year.” His statement is on record, so why would Carney lie and claim it never happened? Many people seem to think that because Carney is an economist, he knows what he is talking about and can be trusted to lead our country. But it’s also become clear that Carney is a liar, and no matter how smart or experienced someone is, if they are repeatedly caught lying, they cannot be trusted."
Desiree Fixler on X - "Canada, your crisis isn’t US tariffs - it’s Mark Carney. He’s lying, he will never grow your economy. Carney is a managerial elitist pushing the Davos agenda - Net Zero, CBDC, DEI and many other strangleholds on growth and freedom. I know, because I was one of them. I traveled in Carney’s WEF circles for years. These folks don’t care about ordinary people, they’re only driven by autocratic power and money. Free your country from this authoritarian heist. Unleash drilling, restore meritocracy and take back your prosperity. Dump him"
Opinion: Mark Carney will not make Canada more prosperous - The Globe and Mail - "As economic strategies go, Liberal Leader Mark Carney is the ultimate confidence man. He wants to tax what Canada exports and subsidize what we import. Judging by the poll numbers, many Canadians are somehow persuaded this will lead us to prosperity. As a candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party, he pitched himself as an outsider and an unconventional politician who will focus on “getting our economy back on track” – an outsider who’d advised the Liberal government since 2020, during which time Canada’s per capita GDP has been shrinking 0.4 per cent a year, the worst performance amongst the top 50 developed economies, and eventually became the chair of Justin Trudeau’s 2024 Task Force on Economic Growth. And in true confidence man-style, he wrote a book about 21st century economic governance, Value(s), that is full of outdated, conventional economic theories rooted in the 1970s – an economy we no longer live in. Whether it’s his perspectives on incentives, investment, climate strategies or productivity, Mr. Carney’s economic proposals to date represent the very establishment that has for the past 30 years peddled ossified and distorted ideas about the economy that manifested a systemic erosion of Canada’s prosperity. A more confident and efficient version of Mr. Trudeau will not make Canada’s economy grow. Instead, Mr. Carney’s economic policy proposals will simply perpetuate the status quo, making Canada more vulnerable, less prosperous and less sovereign. One of Mr. Carney’s signature ideas for economic growth is pricing carbon. The Globe’s editorial board, and others, have pointed out that, even with his recent commitments to pause the consumer carbon tax, mandating big polluters to pay more means those costs will inevitably be passed down to consumers. But there is a much costlier outcome for Canadians in the clean energy strategy that Mr. Carney is advocating for. Canada’s best export by far is energy, but because of decades of failed innovation strategies, our technology import levels far outweigh our exports, mirroring the structure of a developing economy. For a country in this predicament, taxing carbon to green the economy is a dichotomy. Mr. Carney says that Canada must also invest $2-trillion by 2050 – that’s approximately $80-billion per year – to achieve “net zero” without a plan for building the domestic clean-tech sector. Canada can certainly go green but, absent domestic innovation, it will also impoverish itself, following in the footsteps of the Ontario Liberals’ Green Energy Act, which transferred billions of dollars to South Korea for green technology and then the Ontario Conservatives, who gave billions to foreign EV battery companies. That strategy of ignoring domestic innovation in favour of subsidizing foreign technologies has put Ontario on a trajectory where its prosperity is now on par with Alabama – one of America’s poorest states... But Mr. Carney doesn’t seem much interested in driving domestic innovation. In the 500-plus pages of his book on economics, intellectual property (IP) – the currency of the contemporary, technologically intensive global economy – is mentioned only once in a single sentence toward the end. Never mind that the global economy was reshaped 35 years ago because the United States started to focus on accumulation of IP assets for its companies and then encoding those new legal rights into trade agreements around the world, including via both NAFTA and the World Trade Organization in 1994... Canadians should be wary of celebrity politicians that know how to present as connected and aspirational talkers. We had that in Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and their last economic adviser, Dominic Barton. It spelled disaster for our economy. Canada’s economy is in structural decline because our traditional policy community is composed exclusively of people with expertise like Mr. Carney’s. Their economic strategies have repeatedly failed to shift Canada into a place where our highly educated work force, and our investments in R&D can generate higher value-added outcomes across all sectors and industries. They are unable to support Canadian companies that produce high-margin goods and services that drive better paycheques. Any of the antiquated economic ideas currently proposed by Mr. Carney would be plenty troubling on their own. Together they augur a familiar and frightening era: imagine another few years where the economic erosion started by Justin Trudeau continues, only this time executed more confidently and efficiently."
Carney is fearmongering his way into the PMO - "As was widely predicted, including in this column, U.S. President Donald Trump’s initial brinkmanship remarks about Canada and tariffs were his usual shock and awe technique for commencing negotiations... The best way to deal with farm income insufficiencies is direct income supplements to the farmers, not forcing the entire population to overpay for what they put on their breakfast table... He has said he will negotiate and it will not be difficult to reach a reasonable compromise. The magnification of this issue by the Liberals and their Ruritanian charade of presenting a Churchillian Mark Carney shaking his fist across the Great Lakes and promising to fight on the beaches and in the hills and streets and never to surrender to the Americans is now fully exposed as the scam it was to try to get out from under the catastrophic Liberal record of the last 10 years. Whatever happens in the negotiations, in camera between trade specialists, the present take-away is that Canada has much better and less disturbed access to the world’s greatest market than almost any other country. Trump’s comments about Canada becoming the 51st American state were always nonsense designed to stir the pot and alarm the other side in preparation for serious negotiations. Such comments were in any case invited by former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s feeble statement that the Canadian economy would “collapse” if subjected to 25 per cent American tariffs. That (false) preemptive surrender and Canada’s anemic free-loading in NATO, to the point that our fine but pathetically small and under-equipped Armed Forces could now probably be routed by the Palm Beach Police Department, invited such disparaging reflections. But they did not justify Liberal Leader Mark Carney’s anti-American snideries and his childish disparagement of Trump as “orange man.” Fortunately, Trump rose above such churlishness and has professed complete equanimity about dealing with either party in the government of this country. Our election campaign was launched on a phony issue, and the president of the U.S. has assisted us in conducting a serious election campaign. Let’s do that. Article content Natural resources constitute the overwhelming majority of our exports to the U.S., which illustrates the absurdity of Carney’s apparent desire to leave them in the ground and strangle the petroleum industry to reduce Canada’s use of carbon, while it continues to rise elsewhere and continues to expose climate change alarm as the hysterical lunacy that most of it is. Carney represents a continuation of the policies of the Trudeau government with which he has been intimately associated for many years. Now that the Trump bugbear has had a silver stake driven through it and all the Liberal party’s fatuous pyrotechnics have become, in Watergatese, “inoperative,” we may dare to hope the country will hold the Liberals to account for these 10 years of failure. Despite the fact that the United States is just now rebounding from the most incompetent presidency since before the Civil War, the average American has 50 per cent more disposable income than the average Canadian. Canada has fallen steadily down the table of the world’s wealthiest countries per capita. We are mocked and reviled throughout the world as the most witlessly woke of all countries, whose thrice chosen prime minister thought the word “mankind” was sexist, promoted the fraud, abetted by the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, that Canada had been guilty of attempted genocide against Indigenous people and was complicit in the attempted extermination of the English language in Quebec. Article content As Canada’s competitiveness and prestige in the world have been immolated, Trudeau has passed the torch to someone who has never before faced an election and is messianically committed to turning our pockets inside out to achieve net zero carbon emissions. The crowning imposture in this election campaign to date, exceeding even the Liberal charade of defending us from the American ogre, is Mark Carney’s record as a central banker. The latest Liberal television advertisement I have seen announced that Mark Carney had brought Britain through the Brexit crisis. In fact, he was the crisis: Carney was the chief inventor of what was known as ”Operation Fear,” the attempt to terrorize Britain into remaining in Europe and effectively scrapping the parliamentary sovereignty that had evolved over 800 years in favour of Brussels’ authoritarian regulatory despotism of high tax dirigisme, in which Britain’s relations with the United States and the Commonwealth would be subsumed entirely into the blunderbuss anti-Anglo-Saxon foreign policy of the European Union. The rule and high court of Parliament would yield to the authoritarian socialists of Davos. Mark Carney is a self-proclaimed “elitist” and says that is “exactly what we need.” Britain rejected (and almost tarred and feathered) him. He made a mockery of the loudly touted policy of the independent central bank by parroting the hysteria of Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne. Cameron promised “full-on treaty change” from Europe and brought back less from Brussels than Neville Chamberlain got in Munich. Having failed in Britain, Mark Carney is the second team trying again, in the second division; as a political leader, he is both a novice and a charlatan."
CityNews Toronto on X - "#LATEST: Disability, gender equality advocates slam Carney’s elimination of cabinet positions"
Thread by @jonkay on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "I’m not sure there is any real equivalent to Canada‘s Liberal party in any other country. It more or less just transforms itself into whatever voters want. As recently as a few years ago, Trudeau‘s idealized successor was a genderfluid BLM supporter and environmentalist who agonized hourly about indigenous genocide. Then they were like, “oh no, that’s not what anybody wants at all, so let’s just elect a serial G7 banker white dude who flushes all that crap down the toilet.” And it’s working ! The insane thing is how short everyone’s memory in this country is. In 2021, all anyone could talk about was how Canada is a genocide state. In fact, we were a double genocide state! MMIWG and those unmarked graves no one seems to be able to find. You’d think that ending this supposedly ongoing genocide would be the first order of business for any new Prime Minister. Nope. No one cares. Yesterday’s news. Let’s get on with smashing US liquor bottles and trashing Wayne Gretzky. I mean, imagine being an octo-spirited indigenous double genocide survivor right now. Trudeau has done summersaults explaining how he’s going to lower all the flags for you. He cried. He bent the knee. He wailed and beat his chest. He invented new holidays and unpronounceable acronyms. But now he’s gone and no one in the liberal party gives a fck anymore. When Trudeau created his indigenous genocide orange shirt holiday and then buggered off to Tofino to hit the surf, it was treated as a scandal. In truth, it was pretty much a metaphor for the liberal party. Surf’s up wherever the votes are. Throw the T-shirt in the tickle trunk and get out your big red pom-poms. None of this would be possible if Liberal supporters, including those in the media, weren’t capable of instantaneous doublethink. The carbon tax is necessary to save the planet… which is why Carney was correct to get rid of it. Those 215 “unmarked graves” represent the greatest crime in Canadian history… which is why we must not investigate it. Canada is a white supremacist settler abomination… which is why we must elect another white man to run it. Eastasia has always been our enemy. Eurasia has always been our friend. The reason Trudeau was such a successful politician is that he was able to fuse this manic Liberal doublethink with whatever passing social fad happened to be wafting through Twitter. Unfortunately, he had no exit strategy he could execute on his own. He couldn’t backtrack all that crap while remaining in office. Carney is his exit strategy.
“Got it done”
Beyond satire"
Alan Fryer 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇮🇱 on X - "The fact NDP voters are deserting their party in droves for a well-heeled banker, a multimillionaire skilled in the art of tax avoidance, an aristocratic self-described European, is nothing short of hilarious, a phenomenon that will be studied by political scientists for decades."
FIRST READING: Mark Carney’s wildly unworkable plan for an 'all-in-Canada' auto sector - "Steel from Canadian foundries would supply Canadian factories to build Canadian vehicles for Canadians. “We will build an All-In-Canada auto manufacturing network,” declared Carney in a statement. There’s just one problem: Anyone with even a peripheral connection to the Canadian auto sector is saying this makes zero sense whatsoever. Last month, CBC Windsor surveyed auto industry experts on the then-hypothetical notion of an “all-in-Canada” auto sector, and responses ranged from “highly inefficient” to “a cute idea.” “It’s just not practical to build a car company from scratch,” Dennis Darby, president and CEO of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, told the broadcaster. Canada’s $14-billion auto manufacturing sector is oriented entirely around the idea of working with U.S. carmakers. Building “all-in-Canada” vehicles would require a complete retooling of almost everything. “The business case in my view would not be there to do that,” said Peter Frise, director of the Centre for Automotive Research and Education at the University of Windsor, in an interview with National Post on Thursday. Frise said the entire North American auto sector is “optimized” around efficiency: Every auto part manufactured in Canada got that way because a Canadian company was able to do it better than either a U.S. or Mexican company — and vice versa. The classic example are the dies and molds used to make plastic automotive parts, a disproportionate number of which are made in Windsor. Conversely, the exterior design for cars is almost entirely centred in the U.S. “Industry isn’t doing this for fun. In general, things are the way they are because that’s what makes sense,” said Frise. A recent fact sheet released by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association said that even in cars that are assembled in Canada, “more than half” of the parts originate in the U.S. Of those completed cars, meanwhile, 90 per cent of them are exported to the United States. Most of the cars purchased by Canadian buyers, meanwhile, are rolled out of U.S. factories. Any shift to an “all-in-Canada” model would require the creation of whole new auto parts sectors of which Canada has no experience — and it would detonate supply chains that have been streamlined over decades. “If you try to change the supply chain, something’s going to suffer. Quality could go down. Delivery could go down,” Frise said. Cost, too, would almost certainly suffer. Even in the U.S. — where Trump has similarly talked of propping up an “all-in-America” auto sector — insiders estimate that it would add thousands of dollars to the cost of a new vehicle... An “all-in-Canada” auto sector has actually been tried before, and loosely describes the state of the industry prior to the 1965 Canada-U.S. Auto Pact, the free trade agreement that first precipitated the intense integration of the two markets. Prior to the 1965 pact, Canada slapped tariffs on U.S.-made vehicles of up to 25 per cent. This frequently precipitated the bizarre situation of carmakers maintaining Canadian and U.S. factories manufacturing identical vehicles almost within sight of one another — with the smaller and less efficient Canadian factory kept open purely as a tariff dodge. “By doing the auto pact, we were able to move towards a much more rational, much more optimized system,” said Frise. The sector is also much larger. Pre-1965, Canada could only claim about five per cent of the North American auto sector. Now, it’s doubled to about 10 per cent . A similar cautionary example of the perils of pursuing an “all-in” auto sector can be found in Australia. For decades, Australia was home to four carmakers serving the domestic market, including the uniquely Australian Holden automotive brand. This, too, was maintained entirely through tariffs that, according to Frise, resulted in Australian cars being “beastly expensive.” “Quality was so poor that if Australia had instituted ‘lemon laws’, many models would have been withdrawn from the market … Exports were minuscule, and the level of automation and productivity in the sector was among the lowest in the world,” reads an analysis published in the Australian Financial Review . The whole industry was so uncompetitive, that when Australia dropped its auto tariff regime in 2010, the sector evaporated within months . Carney himself used to acknowledge that the Canadian auto sector only worked effectively in a global context. When he was Bank of Canada governor, he gave a 2012 speech to the Canadian Auto Workers telling members that their future lay in producing specialized components better than anyone else, rather than in building whole airplanes or cars."
Michael Higgins: Mark Carney has no idea how to respond to Trump - "Justin Trudeau did not think the rules applied to him and it took more than nine years for Canada to come to terms with that glaring truth. Now Liberal Leader Mark Carney is going down the same road. Carney is in need of a safe seat to run in and, as if by magic, one has just opened up in Ottawa Nepean. Of course, it has meant ousting sitting Liberal Chandra Arya who has been the MP there for almost a decade. This is the same Arya who was disqualified from the Liberal leadership contest and subsequently cast a shadow on Carney. “This decision raises significant questions about the legitimacy of the leadership race and, by extension, the legitimacy of the next prime minister of Canada,” Arya said in a tweet after being banned. Carney claims the decision by the Liberal party to disbar Chandra from running for the Liberals in Nepean had nothing to do with him. Information came to light about Chandra, Carney said in Halifax on Tuesday, that resulted in his being banned. “I’m not privy to the exact information,” said Carney. Well, if the prime minister and leader of the Liberal party isn’t privy to this kind of information than who is? It’s tough to believe that Carney wasn’t informed of the reason especially as the Globe and Mail was able to report that it had to do with a trip to India by Chandra. Meanwhile, Carney’s interference has also resulted in Ottawa lawyer Graham Murray being turfed from running for the Liberals in Nova Scotia where he grew up. Murray was the official Liberal candidate for Central Nova but only hours into his campaign he was pushed aside in favour of former cabinet minister Sean Fraser. In December, the tearful housing minister told a news conference that he was leaving politics because, “My kids aren’t getting any younger and they’re going to need their dad around.” But now — maybe because the kids are four months older — Fraser is returning to politics having been persuaded by Carney to return. It may also be a help in Fraser’s decision that when he announced he was quitting it looked like the Liberals wouldn’t even achieve official party status in a federal election because they were polling so badly. Now Liberal fortunes are on the ascendent and so is Fraser. Still, it’s a lousy way to treat Chandra and Murray who appear to have been loyal Liberal servants... Carney is still not comfortable in front of the cameras and on Wednesday he looked and sounded stilted, downcast and uncomfortable. Standing next to Lana Payne, the Unifor president, Carney kept looking over to her as if seeking assurance and guidance. At a time of crisis, Canada expects its leader to be firm, confident and in control, not strained, awkward and lost. “This is a direct attack,” Carney rightly said of the tariffs, but it would have helped if he had sounded like he meant it. In contrast, Pierre Poilievre fittingly adopted a more somber tone in his message on the same theme."
Mark Carney is no ally of the oilpatch, says Alberta Premier Danielle Smith as she calls for election - "Smith and her cabinet colleagues regularly criticise the federal Liberals for their policies toward the sector, including the proposed oil and gas emissions cap. "Mark Carney is responsible for net zero banking. He's been on a warpath against the energy industry for his entire career," Smith said at CERAWeek, an international energy conference in Houston."
Opinion: Carney's emissions cap flip-flop casts doubt on his pro-growth claims - "Liberal Leader Mark Carney said he wanted Canada’s oil and gas sector to be “as competitive as possible,” as opposed to having an emissions cap that would prescribe a preset limit on GHG emissions with a preset timeline. Soon after Carney’s proclamation however, federal Environment Minister Terry Duguid stated that the proposed emissions cap would remain in place because Canada “wants the energy from the oilpatch, not the pollution that comes with it.” The next day, after repeated attempts to avoid providing a direct answer, Carney reversed his decision — the oil and gas emissions cap would stay. A cap on oil and gas emissions is inconsistent with Carney’s claim that he supports a Canadian growth agenda. Oil and gas are Canada’s largest export at $142 billion in revenue and 19 per cent of GDP (as of 2023). Without oil and gas exports, the Canadian dollar would depreciate steeply, resulting in higher consumer prices and lower incomes relative to other countries. In 2024, the sector paid over $20 billion in taxes and royalties to the federal and provincial governments, used to fund national programs and services. Labour productivity in non-conventional oil extraction was $400 per working hour in 2023, almost six times higher than in the auto sector. Not surprisingly, workers are rewarded with the best compensation among sectors. Kneecapping our major export will undermine the competitiveness of our oil and gas sector. No other oil-producing country, including Norway, singles out oil for a special emissions cap. The cap would make Canada an outlier, imposing costs and restrictions on our oil and gas sector that are borne by none of our competitors. Moreover, the Saskatchewan Economic Impact Assessment Tribunal, which was commissioned in late 2023 to report on the economic costs of policies like the oil and gas emissions cap, concluded, “It is important that the Canadian regulatory regime be consistent with policies in the rest of North America,” otherwise production will be diminished and there will be “a flight of capital away from Canada.” The oil and gas emissions cap would undermine Canadian energy competitiveness relative to the United States generally but especially during the presidency of Donald Trump, who is rolling back American environmental measures. A Conference Board of Canada report , updated in March, estimates the impact of federal policies on growth in the coming years. To achieve federal-determined targeted reductions in emissions, the oil and gas caps will have a profound impact on those sectors, obviously important to the western provinces and Newfoundland. As estimated by the Conference Board, oil and gas production will plummet by 13 per cent by 2030 and 37 per cent by 2050. Alberta’s GDP will fall by 4.8 per cent by 2030 and 11 per cent by 2030. Its employment will decline by 1.8 per cent in 2030 and 4.1 per cent by 2050. Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer assessed the economic impacts of the proposed emissions cap on projected growth in oil and gas production. The report found that “upstream oil and gas sector production will need to be reduced by 4.9 per cent over 2030 to 2032 relative to projected levels in the baseline scenario” … which would “lower real gross domestic product (GDP) in Canada by 0.39 per cent in 2032 and reduce nominal GDP by $20.5 billion.” Additionally, “achieving the legal upper bound will reduce economy-wide employment in Canada by 40,300 jobs and full-time equivalents by 54,400 in 2032.” The Saskatchewan Economic Impact Assessment Tribunal commissioned various models, including one by Navius Research, used by the federal government, to assess the economic impacts of the emission cap on that province. The Navius model, based on an optimistic fast adoption of new carbon-reducing technologies, found that oil production would fall by 38 per cent to 52 per cent by 2050. Canada’s GDP would drop by 1.5 per cent to 6.45 per cent, which would produce a recession comparable to the 2008 global financial crisis. Nonetheless, there would be no decline in global emissions because oil and gas production would simply shift to other jurisdictions, some of which have lower environmental standards. Also, the tribunal found that “the federal initiatives apply only to Canadian-produced oil, and not to imports of oil. If production of oil and gas decreases as a result of the federal initiatives, there will be an increase in imports.” While Carney proposes a carbon tariff that would apply to imports, including by many large emitting resource and manufacturing companies, it would set off a major trade confrontation with the Trump administration on top of current trade frictions. As well as being economically costly, the implementation of the oil and gas emissions cap will perpetuate the current federal-provincial gridlock. Oil-producing provinces have vowed to challenge the legislation in court, ensuring lengthy court battles and uncertainty that the Saskatchewan tribunal found discourages investments in oil and gas and in technologies to reduce emissions. The Liberal party may have a new face but it still has the same old environmental policies that have contributed to a decline in investment, stalled economic growth and a deeply divided country."
EXCLUSIVE: Mark Carney faces plagiarism accusations for 1995 Oxford doctoral thesis - "Liberal Leader Mark Carney has been accused of taking other people’s ideas as his own in the federal election campaign. It isn’t new. The National Post obtained a copy of Carney’s 1995 thesis for his doctorate in economics from Oxford University titled “The Dynamic Advantage of Competition.” It shows 10 instances of apparent plagiarism, according to the judgment of three university academics who reviewed the material... “He’s just directly repeating without quotations. That’s what we call plagiarism,” said Geoffrey Sigalet, an assistant professor and member of UBC president’s advisory committee on student discipline, which handles plagiarism cases for the university... A professor who is also a graduate from Oxford University, speaking on background out of fear of being sued by Carney, agreed that the problematic passages in the Liberal leader’s thesis would fall within the plagiarism definition. “Oxford’s guidelines are not atypical from other universities,” he said. “When you have something lifted verbatim from a source, in there without quotation marks or citation… that constitutes plagiarism,” added the professor... The academics interviewed for this article dismissed the idea that Carney would have lacked the proper knowledge to properly attribute his sources at a PhD level. Furthermore, the examples mentioned in this article do not pertain to one single section of his thesis. “It seems like it’s all over the dissertation, not just one part,” said Sigalet. On its website, Oxford University says it regards plagiarism “as a serious matter.”... social status hasn’t stopped universities from revoking degrees. And in recent years, many European ministers have had to resign following allegations that some of their university work was plagiarized or after having been stripped of some of their academic credentials."
We know that plagiarism is okay if you're black, especially if you're a black woman, but too bad he's the wrong race and sex. The cope is going to be that if an "American" news company says it, it must be false
Carney says he resigned from 'all' his roles. Turns out he hasn't - "“We can indeed confirm that Mr. Carney is a current president at Chatham House,” said a press officer at The Royal Institute of International Affairs on Wednesday. Chatham House, a registered charity in England, aims “to help governments and societies build a sustainably secure, prosperous and just world.” When asked about these conflicting statements, Carney’s campaign first told the National Post that he resigned “from all other professional or advisory roles.” However, as of Friday, Carney is still listed as a board member of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), an “independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening prosperity and human welfare in the global economy.”... a spokesman for the Group of Thirty, an international non-profit of economists, bankers and other influential policy makers, confirmed Carney remains the chair, which is also a voluntary role... Carney repeated to reporters that he “ceased to be a number of other things,” including United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Change, before he announced his leadership candidacy. “I resigned all of my positions because I’m all in for Canada, all in for this leadership, all in during this time of crisis to build our great country,” said Carney. However, further examination reveals that Carney resigned from some of his high-profile positions around the time he announced he was running for Liberal leader — not necessarily before. Carney resigned as senior counsellor at global counsel firm Macro Advisory Partners on Jan. 15, the day before his leadership launch, but only stepped down from the volunteer board of directors of the Rideau Hall Foundation on Jan. 19, three days after his campaign announcement. On Jan. 17, the investment management firm PIMCO sent an internal note to its employees informing them that Carney would be stepping down from its global advisory board. The company stated that Carney would no longer be involved in any activity or consulting role related to PIMCO... Carney also remains a member of Harvard University’s Board of Overseers. According to the school, Carney informed them he intends to step down as of March 9, which is when the next Liberal leader will be announced... He told Harvard Magazine in 2021 that his decision to run for the Harvard board was motivated by his move out of the public-service sector. This eliminated any possible conflicts of interest. “I am standing now because I have the time to devote myself to the role and am now free from perceived conflicts that might have arisen in my prior public service roles,” Carney told the magazine."
From February. Of course lying is only bad if you're not pushing the left wing agenda
bestsongs.com.ng 
