Barbara Bal on X - "🤯 The Canadian government isn’t even sitting down with the Americans to talk CUSMA: “There’s been a three-and-a-half month lag, I would say, between dialogue between the two countries, dating back to sort of the end of October.” - MP @jamiljivani (after his trip to Washington) @USAmbCanada Pete Hoeskstra was even more direct (in his recent interview with Jasmin Laine): “… there have been no ‘substantive’ talks with Canada since October.” @JasminLaine_ Why purposely neglect our most critical trade deal with the country we share the largest border in the world? This isn’t incompetence. This is by design. “I believe the progress that we have made in the partnership sets us up well for the new world order.” - PM Mark Carney (in Beijing) And his wife Diana Fox Carney at the Liberal convention: “Canada… is helping shape a new world order.” They’re not even hiding it anymore. This government is actively trying to build a “new world order” that sidelines our closest ally and biggest trading partner. This is actually insane."
cbcwatcher on X - ""It’s highly unlikely Mark Carney will follow the same political fate as Britain’s Keir Starmer because, unlike Starmer, Carney is safely ensconced in the Media Protection Program by the major media outlets he finances. In the U.K., much of the media are self-sustaining, financially independent. They have been hammering Starmer’s terrible governance. Also, Carney has the luxury of having control over the federal courts and the Senate that Justin Trudeau loaded up with loyal Liberals.""
Chris Warkentin on X - "Last week I was asking a journalist (who works for a major Canadian media outlet) about this. This journalist agreed that Media in Canada had largely quit covering any opposing viewpoints to the government. This journalist speculated that it happed during Covid. They had become stenographers for the government, believing that they had a moral duty to get the “government’s” information out…..and they never quit. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s as simple as that (as horrifying as that is)….but I suspect it’s even worse. There are vested interests that don’t want the Liberals to ever lose power. In an free and democratic society the media has a responsibility to question the government and hold them accountable. Canadians deserve no less."
Carney's Mideast policy is completely detached from reality - "On May 7, Prime Minister Mark Carney picked up the phone and called Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. As Carney suggested in an X post, accompanied by a photo of him looking at a telephone sitting on a desk, he expressed all manner of criticism of Israel and its conduct, while positively gushing over various unspecified measures taken by the Palestinian Authority... Abbas is in the 21st year of a four-year term as president. He has had more than ample opportunity to implement all manner of reforms. By any measure, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is repressive, particularly when it comes to gender and LGBT rights, issues that have long formed the cornerstone of Liberal foreign policy. In the readout, Carney lauds measures that “strengthen accountability, governance and democratic institutions.” Exactly what he is referring to is very unclear. Abbas has not implemented any meaningful democratic reforms since his last phone call with Carney in July 2025; nor, frankly, since he was elected in 2005... “The Palestinian Authority continues to advance elements of a UN‑supported reform agenda focused on social protection, education-sector adjustments and improvements to transparency and service delivery.” The PCO also referenced steps the PA has taken to “establish a new social welfare system” and develop “new education materials.” Asked to provide particulars regarding the “UN-supported agenda,” the PCO refused to provide further information and suggested contacting the United Nations. At best, this is a peculiar response. Any such “agenda” would, presumably, be available upon request, as a matter of institutional accountability. Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs was unaware of any such “UN-supported agenda” when asked about the Canadian government’s response. Even so, any reforms that have been implemented by the PA have been perfunctory, at best. Its new welfare system has been criticized by the United States and Israel for continuing to pay the families of terrorists — a program referred to as “pay for slay.” Palestinians who attack Israelis are rewarded with a lifetime salary. If they are killed or imprisoned, their families are the beneficiaries of PA largesse. Israel and many western countries regard this as a reward for terrorism. Regarding the PA school curriculum, which is extremely antisemitic and anti-Israel, the European Parliament has condemned the PA for continuing to use such textbooks. The Carney-Abbas phone call was picked up by the PA-controlled WAFA news agency, which published a lengthy, glowing report of the exchange... Since becoming prime minister, Carney has been diligent in lacerating Israel for all manner of real and imagined transgressions, while scrupulously and uncritically praising Abbas. He has not spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once since he was elected. There has been almost no direct contact between Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. And the icy relations are apparent. Such conduct is consistent with Carney’s approach to Israel in general. Think what you want of his policy intuition and management, but directly antagonizing, or refusing to meet with, world leaders — be it U.S. President Donald Trump or Netanyahu — is not a brilliant strategy. Carney also recently reached out to the president of Lebanon, which he used as another opportunity to condemn Israel and what he termed its “illegal invasion” of southern Lebanon. Again, it’s difficult to overstate how ignorant and biased this comment is. Illegal invasion? Carney is referring, of course, to Israel entering Lebanon to do what the Lebanese army has failed to do: disarm Hezbollah. He is silent about the fact that on Oct. 8, 2023, Hezbollah began attacking civilians in northern Israel with rockets and missiles. It then broke a ceasefire when it resumed its attacks at the start of the war with Iran. Carney makes no mention of Hezbollah’s de facto occupation and destruction of southern Lebanon, which has been decried by Lebanon’s leadership repeatedly and vehemently. Nor does he seem to think it significant that Hezbollah has built a web of tunnels for the sole purpose of attacking Israel. In light of his conduct, a charitable assumption is that Carney is unaware of the November 2024 agreement between Israel and Lebanon, in which Lebanon accepted responsibility for disarming Hezbollah. Perhaps a rebuke of the Lebanese government — or Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah — might have been more appropriate. But that’s not how Carney rolls. What his fumbling efforts at diplomacy make clear is that he truly sees himself as a transformative figure who is leading the move towards the creation of a “new world order,” a rather grand proclamation he has made repeatedly in recent months. Upon attending the European Political Community Summit in Armenia recently, Carney posted a frenetic video collage of him working rooms and shaking hands, boasting that this was the first time a non-European country has participated in the event. The mere fact of his presence, he suggests, is somehow significant — groundbreaking, even. Carney is openly obsessed with the notion of Canada being more European than North American. He suggests that our values and ways are more aligned with the United Kingdom and continental Europe than the United States and Mexico. Geography, however, is immutable. And no matter how visionary the prime minister may be, he cannot alter that fixed reality. Being part of an enormous, contiguous land mass will always be a defining feature of Canadian trade and foreign policy. Willing it otherwise is a vainglorious indulgence. Carney has demonstrated consistently that he has less than no understanding of the geopolitical realities — not just in North America, but also in the Middle East. The truth is that there is not a single country in the Middle East that gives a toss about what Canada says, thinks or does. His key allies in the region seem to be the Palestinian Authority and Qatar. Canadian values, eh? We used to have a reputation for being honourable and straight as an arrow. But not any longer. And for good reason: we appear to be detached from reality."
CarneyWatch.ca — Tracking Mark Carney's Broken Promises & Flip-Flops
This is pretty comprehensive, with sections on fiscal discipline/fiscal sustainability, Brookfield, the "sovereign wealth fund" (i.e. sovereign debt fund), China's human rights violations, broken promises (with exact quotes), policy reversals (with dates), conflict of interest, coverups and floor crossings. "All claims are sourced from publicly available statements, parliamentary records, and credible Canadian media."
The easy fixes Carney isn't doing | National Post - "Repealing the industrial carbon tax... it will slow down the economy just enough to equal $1,730 in lost income per employed Canadian by 2030... businesses are indeed citing it as something that is scaring away investment. Just this week, Cenovus Energy CEO Jon McKenzie told a conference outside Montreal that no other oil-producing nation maintains a similar tax, so rather than its intended purpose of incentivizing decarbonization, it “incents industry to invest outside of Canada.” “We have created a set of national policies and regulations that make resource development and investment in Canada uncompetitive with the rest of the world,” he said.
Repealing the tanker ban
Right now, it is illegal to sail an oil tanker into the one stretch of Canadian coastline where it would be most profitable to establish an oil export port... The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, cancelled in 2016, had been planned to end in Kitimat, B.C. If Northern Gateway had been built on schedule, it would currently be exporting 525,000 barrels of oil per day. Which, at today’s elevated oil prices, is about $44 million worth. All the while, the tanker ban has very specifically been cited as the reason no other company has stepped up to build a pipeline to the Northwest Coast...
Streamlining regulatory approvals
Whether they refer to it as “red tape” or “uncertainty,” there is relatively universal accord among the business world that getting something approved in Canada is exponentially more difficult than in other jurisdictions, most notably the U.S. When TD Bank drafted up a policy paper last October on Canada’s worst “barriers” to investment, they ranked “regulatory reform” right alongside high taxes. For years, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has listed “regulatory reform” as one of its chief policy goals. “Canada’s regulatory environment has become a collection of complicated, overlapping and inefficient sets of rules that permeate nearly every aspect of how business is conducted,” reads their most recent position statement. “Cutting red tape” is a pretty broad term. But a 2023 memo by the Business Council of Canada outlined some of the easier fixes to what it called Canada’s “slow and burdensome” approvals process. One of the easiest was “expedite processes for brownfield sites.” If a mine or nuclear plant wants to expand its existing operations, it actually faces more red tape as a “brownfield site” than if it was starting an entirely new project on a “greenfield site.” Another, which has become particularly relevant in recent months, was to “clarify the requirements for Indigenous consent of projects.” In B.C. in particular right now, business investment has been thrown into a holding pattern by uncertainty over DRIPA, a provincial law that effectively prioritizes Aboriginal rights over all other regulatory processes. A just-released survey by the Business Council of B.C. found that 74 per cent of their members were cutting back investment because of it. But so far, the Carney government’s only real progress on the issue of regulatory reform was last year’s passage of the Building Canada Act. The bill very specifically did not solve the underlying issue of overregulation. Rather, it simply established a means by which select “major projects” could be declared exempt from federal regulations. Everyone else, meanwhile, must continue to face the machinations of the existing regime.
Canadian tax policy is still lagging...
In a 2025 KPMG poll of Canadians business leaders, in fact, they ranked “comprehensive tax review” just behind “removing trade barriers” in terms of the policy actions most likely to spur new business... in terms of the top marginal tax rate on personal income, Canadians are one of the most-taxed on Earth at 53.5 per cent, with OECD data showing that only Japan, Denmark, France and Austria are higher. As to what taxes to reform, a 2025 report by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business provided a few examples that would at least get Canada’s tax burden in line with that of the U.S. Among them, lower corporate taxes and payroll taxes."
Meanwhile, many left wingers are denouncing him as a "conservative", because they won't rest until the country has been destroyed
Clearly, private companies not building pipelines shows that it's unprofitable, and the free market has spoken and there's nothing the government can or should do
cbcwatcher on X - "Carney is asked over and over about transnational repression
Answer to the Globe - "vigilance" but it is before the courts
Answer to National Post - Snark Carney brushes off an "not for quotation" quote
Answer to CTV - It would be a breach of my security clearance...
With all the babble and word salad of classic Carney answers... @markjcarney"
G.M. Forbes on X - "Wait. So the Liberals have spent the last 2+ years hammering Poilievre over security clearance. Poilievre says if he got it he wouldn't be allowed to talk about issues. Liberals claimed he's lying. Now Carney invokes his security clearance as why he can't answer a question? 😂"
Meme - G.M. Forbes @gmforbes35: "To all the Liberal twats commenting here claiming Carney did not invoke his security clearance as a reason he can't answer even basic questions on Indian interference, even Trudeau PMO member and staunch Liberal Supriya roasted him."
Supriya Dwivedi @supriyadwivedi: "Imaoo I was wondering how long it would take before the CPC picked up on this (and they're right to do so, PMMC singlehandedly blew apart the argument for Poilievre needing to get his clearance when he used his own to make an excuse as to why he can't answer basic questions)"
Rick Perkins @RickPerkinsCPC: "Carney claims his security clearance keeps him from answering questions on India's political interference. Hmm guess Pierre was right about it."
Sean Speer on X - "Canada’s future isn’t European
This week, Prime Minister Carney announced that he’ll soon travel to Europe to attend a major continental summit as its first ever non-European attendee. The trip is occurring against a backdrop of growing discussion about Canada reorienting its trade and security relations towards Europe or even considering some form of formal integration with the European Union. Notwithstanding our ongoing challenges with the Trump administration, the notion that Canada’s future rests with Europe is flawed to say the least. Start with the sociology. Canada isn’t a European country that drifted west. It’s a North American country built, in large part, by people who self-selected out of Europe. They exited rigid class structures, slower growth, and limited opportunity in search of something more dynamic and meritocratic. They were in short North American egalitarians. It’s not a big surprise, then, that over time, Canada has converged far more with the United States than with Europe in its economic structure, labour markets, and entrepreneurial culture. The results are visible in the data: Canada’s per capita income is materially closer to the United States than to the European Union average—and higher than most major European economies. Why would we want to go back? The second problem is economic. Europe’s model of high taxes, heavy regulation, and expansive welfare states has come with trade-offs in growth, investment, and innovation. Over the past two decades, Europe has lagged the U.S. in productivity and technological leadership. There’s a reason the world’s leading technology firms are overwhelmingly American. The same pattern is emerging in artificial intelligence: frontier firms like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind are setting the pace, while Europe has largely positioned itself as a regulatory player—writing rules for technologies it doesn’t lead. Two things can be true at once. President Trump has been belligerent and counterproductive in his approach to Canada. Canadians are right to be angry. But we cannot let emotion cause us to lose who we are. The answer to a difficult American partner isn’t to abandon the North American economic model that has underpinned Canada’s own prosperity. Put bluntly: Canada’s long-term interests lie in growth, openness, and integration, not in retreating toward a slower-growing, more statist European model that’s already failing to deliver wealth and opportunity for its citizens."
Sean Speer on X - "The paradox of Carney’s technocratic politics Prime Minister Carney’s newly announced Canada Strong Fund is more than just another policy initiative. It may be the clearest expression yet of his governing philosophy. The proposed sovereign wealth fund builds on a growing roster of new quasi-independent public bodies, including the Build Canada Homes agency, the Defence Investment Agency, and the Major Project Office. Together, they point to a distinct model of governance: move key government decision-making out of ordinary politics and into specialized institutions staffed by experts, financiers, and appointed managers. At one level, the appeal is obvious. Democratic politics can be messy, short-term, and suboptimal. The insights of Public Choice economists like James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock are everywhere around us. Why then not create professionally managed bodies insulated from partisan pressures and task them with deploying public capital to catalyse private investment? The problem is that Carney’s technocratic model has a far less impressive record than he assumes. For one thing, these agencies are rarely as independent as advertised. Governments create them, appoint their leadership, define their mandates, and inevitably lean on them when political priorities arise. As the Quebec Inc. model has consistently demonstrated, the result is often the worst of both worlds: less direct accountability combined with continuing political influence. Second, such institutions concentrate risk in ways markets generally avoid. A decentralized economy spreads decisions across thousands of investors, entrepreneurs, and firms. Some fail, some succeed, and the system learns through competition. By contrast, government-led investment bodies centralize judgments about sectors, firms, technologies, and priorities. Governments can end up heavily backing the wrong battery technology, overpaying to subsidize politically fashionable sectors, or steering capital toward projects that looked promising in Ottawa boardrooms but cannot compete commercially. When private investors make bad bets, losses are dispersed. When the state makes them at scale, taxpayers are stuck with the downside. Third, there’s a democratic deficit here that shouldn’t be dismissed. Handing discretionary authority over billions of dollars of public funds to unelected officials sits uneasily with a system built on ministerial responsibility and parliamentary accountability. Canadians don’t vote for sovereign wealth fund managers. But there’s also a simpler problem: time. Even on its own terms, the Canada Strong Fund is unlikely to matter anytime soon. It will require legislation, governance structures, executive appointments, staffing, program design, and operating capacity. Optimistically, we’re looking at many months. More realistically, years. Yet as the fiscal update showed, Canada’s growth challenge is immediate. GDP growth is set to be barely 1 percent this year and less than 2 percent annually in the coming years. There are policy tools available right now—tax reform, regulatory streamlining, and faster project approvals—that could begin improving conditions far sooner. This is the paradox of technocratic politics. In trying to bypass ordinary democratic politics, it often ends up bypassing the fastest and most effective tools government already has."
Ethics report is calling on Carney to sell his assets. It won’t happen - "Lots of ink has been spilled this past year about the quandary of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s sprawling past business dealings, significant investments and his many potential conflicts of interest, and a parliamentary committee unveiled some possible solutions this week. Yet, most of these solutions are very unlikely to see the light of day. The House standing committee on access to information, privacy and ethics unveiled its review of the Conflict of Interest Act on Thursday. It contains 20 recommendations to further strengthen the law, many of which are specifically tailored to deal with Carney’s minefield of potential conflicts given his role in setting policy and regulation that will affect businesses and markets in which he could have an interest. The chair of the committee, Conservative MP John Brassard, said most members agreed there should be more stringent rules for the position of prime minister compared to other MPs, “because individuals with greater decision-making authority should be held and must be held to higher standards.” The recommendations were supported by the Conservative and Bloc Québécois MPs, which for the moment form a majority of members on the committee. The Liberal members co-signed a dissenting report, which essentially rejects the committee’s recommendations... The committee is calling on the government to amend the Conflict of Interest Act to require anyone who holds the position of prime minister of Canada to sell all assets he or she controls within 60 days of assuming office... The report says that the law should be amended to ensure that “the prime minister, as a reporting public office holder, is fully divested from their controlled assets through sale, since placement in a blind trust does not constitute true divestment.” The clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Sabia, one of two senior aides managing Carney’s extensive conflict-of-interest screen of over 100 corporate entities, told the committee he himself decided to sell his Brookfield shares to “better manage” the prime minister’s screen... Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon has also vowed to change House of Commons committee composition to reflect the new Liberal majority, which Conservatives say will ensure less oversight of government operations and potential ethical concerns. “I’ll remind everybody that these committees with a majority of membership held by the opposition, including the chair, were the ones that exposed the ArriveCAN situation. We are the ones that exposed the Winnipeg labs situation,” said ethics chair John Brassard, referring to the scandal of runaway spending on a traveller’s digital app and Chinese spying at a national research institute that had been kept from the public. “Without a majority on those committees, it will limit and handcuff the ability to expose corruption, to expose cronyism, to expose the type of scandals that we’ve seen in the past.”"
More than one in 10 Canadians below the poverty line as incomes slip: StatCan : r/PersonalFinanceCanada - "Meanwhile PM said in Parliament: "affordability is the best it's been in a decade""
The Carney rule: If you find a dollar, spend it - "I always head to the summary table that, in numbers only, shows: what the past document planned, what the economy has done to the plan, what measures were taken between the past document and now and, finally, what the current document does. It’s a good logical way to go about the problem: past plan, effects of events, intervening measures taken, this plan. When you see where the big numbers are you can then dive into the oleaginous muck and try to find out what’s going on... Over the past couple of decades this crucial table has drifted toward the rear of the document, even into the appendices. This year it’s Table 1 and it’s in the second introductory chapter, the “Economic and Fiscal Overview” (on p. 48, if you’re following along). Good for the government! — though it could have dispensed with the first introductory chapter, “Canada Strong for All,” which is pure PowerPoint puffery. There are only two numbered chapters in what looks like it’s trying to be a Three Musketeers update. Chapter 1 is titled “Building Canada: All for Canada,” while Chapter 2 is “Benefitting Canadians: A Canada for All.” Get it? All for Canada and Canada for all! I wonder if there was discussion among the editors about whether reference to Alexandre Dumas’ 1844 classic buddies adventure was too male-centric. We do still get little boxes scattered throughout the update — “gender and diversity impacts spotlights,” they’re called — that detail the identity-politics implications of various update measures. Justin Trudeau haunts us still. You can’t help but think that if Mark Carney had not come along to save the Liberal party, we’d now be rid of such performative nonsense. Trudeau’s influence is not just thematic, however. Judging from Table 1, it seems Carney’s fiscal rule is exactly the same as his predecessor’s: if you find a dollar, spend it. Before update day Carney teased in interviews that good news was coming. The good news is in line two of Table 1: “Economic and fiscal developments since Budget 2025.” The developments have been very good: In the current fiscal year and the three that follow, the government has $42.6 billion more to play with than forecast in the budget delivered just five months ago. If it wanted to, it could bank that windfall and reduce its cumulative deficit over the next few years by the entire $42.6 billion. Of course, it’s a Liberal government and has a left wing so saving the whole $42.6 billion really wasn’t on. So how much did they decide to spend? $41.5 billion. Correct: they devoted $1.1 billion (2.6 per cent of it) to deficit reduction but put the rest into initiatives... it seems space-time works differently around Ottawa. The government books another $4.9 billion of “update measures” into last fiscal year, even though the update occurred this week, almost a month after last fiscal year ended. You and I can’t go back in time, but it seems the people spending our federal tax dollars can. If they hadn’t done this, then instead of falling from a forecast $65.4 billion to $65.3 billion, this year’s deficit would have risen to $70.3 billion. Missing even its own bloated deficit target would have been a very bad look for the government and seriously darkened update coverage. But a twitch in time saved bad headlines."
Of course, left wingers are still hailing him as a genius. They're still taken in by all the "Canada Strong" marketing fluff
University founded in memory of dead white men now rejecting white men - "Every prime minister eventually settles on a favourite catchphrase, and it’s looking like Mark Carney’s is turning out to be “dangerous and divided.” Political influencer Ryan Gerritsen assembled a compilation of 15 separate speeches in which Carney used either the terms “divided and dangerous” or “dangerous and divided.” He’s also used it in a number of written statements. As one example, his good luck message to Team Canada at the Winter Olympics said they provided hope to a “more divided and uncertain world.”"
