The Pleb 🌍 Reporter on X - "Mark Carney had the grocery store remove the prices behind him because oh how expensive groceries are in Canada He's pulling the same exact stunts as Trudeau Things are very bad in Canada and the Liberals are using Trump as a way to distract their citizens from it It's evil"
Kirk Lubimov on X - "Keep this in mind when you are assessing Mark Carney's actions:
* His wife is in the US.
* His daughter is in the US.
* He recommended moving Brookfield to the US.
* His assets are invested in the US.
* He opened investment accounts in tax havens.
Notice: For himself, his family, and businesses, he chooses low tax jurisdictions and places with less red tape that will never have carbon tax, green agenda and other ideological driven policies. For you, however, he is implementing the opposite."
Carney's Plains of Abraham remarks show 'historic error': Roberge - "Prime Minister Mark Carney’s statement that the Plains of Abraham symbolize the start of something good shows his complete lack of knowledge of Quebec history, politicians said Friday. “What a gaffe, what a historic error,” Immigration Minister Jean-François Roberge said in an interview with Radio-Canada. “The Battle of the Plains of Abraham are the conquest, the culmination point where the English came and defeated the French and burned villages, etc. “There’s nothing glorious in this.”... “The Plains of Abraham mark a battlefield, and also the place where Canada began to make its founding choice of accommodation over assimilation, of partnership over domination, of building together over pulling apart,” Carney said. On Friday, analysts and politicians ridiculed the statement, saying it seems Carney has little knowledge of Quebec history... Pro-independence politicians pounced on the remarks... “I don’t think (Carney) realizes that he is following in a long tradition of colonialism that dates back to Lord Durham,” St-Pierre Plamondon said in reference to Durham’s vision in the 1800s of uniting Upper and Lower Canada and the assimilation of French Canadians. “Mr. Carney’s speech can only lead to the independence of Quebec.”"
Time for left wingers to screech about how Albertan separatists are traitors again
Yuan Yi Zhu: Face it, Carney just doesn't know much about Canada - "anyone who is even mildly aware of the existence of Quebec society would have understood that to talk about the site of the Quebec nation’s foundational trauma as “the place where Canada began to make its founding choice of accommodation over assimilation, of partnership over domination, of building together over pulling apart” would go down very badly indeed. The press reaction in Quebec has been savage, and the province’s leading politicians have already denounced it in strident terms. To many Quebeckers, this tone-deaf, if not downright insulting speech is but the latest example of why they cannot exist within the framework of the Canadian federation. And in the words of Bloc Québécois Yves-François Blanchet, Carney’s speech “launched the referendum campaign” for Quebec’s separation from Canada. Why did Carney commit such a rookie mistake? And why did no one in his entourage stop him? Part of the answer must lie in the fact that he spent the bulk of his career, including the entirely of his university education, abroad, in venues in which Canada could simply be treated as another generic (mostly) Anglophone western country. In Oxford (where we both studied) and London (where we both worked), this is not a problem, and indeed knowing too much about Canada will mark you out as a provincial. But it is when you are trying to be prime minister of Canada, a country that, pound for pound, has more regional cleavages and unique neuroses than just about any peer country, this is bound to lead to grief. I first noticed this streak of Carney’s character when I reviewed Value(s), his audition piece for high office. It isn’t unusual for aspiring politicos to write such a book; what was unique about Carney’s was that it was not clear in which country he wanted to be a politician. The international edition said almost nothing about Canada, while the Canadian edition consisted of exactly the same text, with a few sentences here and there about Canada, tackled at the end of generic discussions of problems afflicting the West. Say what you want about Justin Trudeau, but his pre-election book (Common Ground, remember that one?) was not written to be read anywhere outside of Canada. Then, on the campaign trail, Carney made numerous remarks, or stumbled through standard questions, which led some to wonder whether his transition from global central banker to the premier of the 7 in G7 was too rushed. But Canadians, always keen on international validation, overlooked that inconvenient fact, as is our right. And his ability to survive Tout le monde en parle was just enough to convince Quebec that he wasn’t so alien after all (he even joked about cows!) Now the jokes are wearing thin. This might have been fine in less treacherous times, when Canada can afford the luxury of indulging in seeking the world’s admiration by electing progressive eye-candy. But the Canadian nation is threatened by a crazy neighbour down south, and not one, but two separatist movements, one which Carney just inflamed through his faux pas. At such a time, it is wise to have someone who has the pulse of the country. But Carney, a member of the global elite by merit, seems more interested to win plaudits abroad than to defuse tensions at home, when he is not needlessly creating more through his lack of cultural antennae, or pursuing his exotic ideas about the proper way to write Canadian English. In some ways, Carney reminds me of Britain’s colonial administrators. Having wielded great power over-seas, and with an attachment to the image of Britain frozen in sepia, they were almost always shocked to find a country that no longer resembled the country that existed in their minds. Edwardians would return as Elizabethans, amazed to discover that the people they grew up with no longer shared the ideas which they used to share. Needless to say, the few who entered British politics encountered nothing but grief. Canadians love the home boy who made good internationally; Carney, who rose from relatively ordinary and very Canadian beginnings to the heights of international finance, embodies this sort of story. But central bankers are mostly interchangeable — Carney ran the Bank of England, and the current head of the New Zealand central bank is from Sweden. Prime ministers aren’t. If Carney wants to avoid becoming Canada’s Lord North, he must begin to learn about the country he left so many years ago."
Carney's Davos speech shows Trump-level indifference to tyranny - "Yuan Yi Zhu, assistant professor in the International Law faculty at the Netherlands’ Leiden University and a research associate with the University of B.C.’s Centre for Constitutional Law and Legal Studies: “The speech reads well but it’s fundamentally empty when it comes to anything but rhetoric. But it’s got the right vibes for the moment and will be praised as a work of genius when it doesn’t get us anywhere beyond the absolutely obvious. The middle power stuff has been in every Canadian foreign policy ideas speech since the 1940s. Principled and pragmatic means literally nothing.”"
'Canada thrives because we are Canadian': Carney fires back at Trump after return from Davos | Fortune - "“We can show that another way is possible, that the arc of history isn’t destined to be warped toward authoritarianism and exclusion; it can still bend toward progress and justice,” Carney said."
Nothing says thriving like falling GDP per capita, and no one embodies progress and justice and stands against authoritarianism and exclusion like Communist China
Conrad Black: Carney's middle powers plan a complete fantasy - "The United Nations and many of its agencies are just primal scream therapy for many of the most retrograde and primitive regimes in the world. Israel can be commended for taking the wrecker’s ball to the outlet of one of its agencies in Jerusalem. Carney was effectively wagging his finger at the United States in the highest (or lowest) tradition of its so-called allies who graciously sheltered under the protective wing of American military power while attempting to collegialize all alliance decisions on the basis that the United States was a great mastiff which would do the work and take the risks while it’s European and Canadian allies held the leash and gave the instructions. The “rules-based international order” was always a fraud. It was a stability based almost entirely on the deterrent and enforcement capacity that the United States possessed because of its great military and economic power. The ideas of a group of “middle powers” grouping together to assert themselves is a complete fantasy. Superpowers don’t care about middle powers as long as other superpowers don’t invade them. After Stalin began the Cold War by violating his commitments at the Yalta Conference to evacuate the liberated countries of eastern Europe and hold genuine free elections there, and the United States imposed its policy of containment of the Soviet Union, and President Nixon exploited the schism between the U.S.S.R. and China by triangulating the great power relationship, the Soviet Union fell like a soufflé and international communism evaporated. The United States did not exploit its position as the world’s only superpower and China, while retaining the totalitarianism of communism, saw the virtues of economic growth that only capitalism could provide and launched itself as the next challenger to the U.S. for world leadership, following the profoundly unsuccessful precedents of Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. NATO degenerated into an alliance of the willing, meaning that the United States would generously guarantee the security of all of the other countries which would decide which, if any NATO project they wished to join. This was not a rules-based order. It was the dominance of a benign and generally peaceful superpower surrounded by a bevy of freeloading coattail-riders. What is happening now is not the “rupture” that Carney declared at Davos and elsewhere, but an adjustment. When the U.S.S.R. was a serious threat de Gaulle and Mitterrand and Adenauer and Kohl and Thatcher and Mulroney pulled their weight in the Alliance. In the last 30 years, as Trump has stated, NATO, apart from the United States, and the nuclear deterrent forces of France and the U.K., has been a low-rise house of cards. Carney shamefully compared the American-led Western Alliance to the Stalinist bloc and Trump was justified in calling him an ingrate at Davos... Canada should finally become a psychologically complete country, and cease to fuss over why it is an independent country. There are ample historic and contemporary reasons for that based on the many distinctions between the ethos of this country and that of the United States. It is precisely because the United States has usually been a benign influence and a good neighbour that it has been so difficult for us even in our own collective thinking, to separate ourselves from it... We are too dependent on the Americans but the fault is ours; changing it will not be like falling off a log and reproaching the Americans, after all they have done to defeat the forces of tyranny in the world in the last 110 years, is no way to begin. And let’s not burn any bridges; closer proximity to China will generate acute nostalgia for the Americans."
The unprecedented expansion of federal Indigenous spending - " In a year-end interview, Prime Minister Mark Carney claimed that the two Conservatives who crossed the floor into his caucus in the final months of 2025 did so entirely of their own volition and that his party had done nothing to convince them. “They came to us,” he told Global News. The claim was dubious as soon as he said it, if only for the fact that one of those floor-crossers, Chris D’Entremont, was already on record as saying that the Liberals had tried for years to lure him over to their benches. And now the claim is even more dubious given that an NDPer and a Conservative have now revealed failed Liberal attempts to goad them into ditching their own parties. Lori Idlout, the NDP MP for Nunavut, told CBC this week that she’d been approached by Liberal Party representatives about a potential floor-crossing. And on Monday, Scott Anderson, the Conservative MP for the B.C. riding of Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, revealed the Liberals had tried the same with him. “It’ll be a cold day in Hell before I even consider betraying my constituents,” he wrote in a Facebook post."
In the 2026 CUSMA showdown with Trump, will Canada blink? - "While Washington would like to see movement on everything from sales of U.S. alcohol to defence procurement when it comes to Canada, Greer highlighted three main issues: Canada’s restricted supply management scheme in dairy, the Online News Act that requires tech giants to pay news organizations for aggregating their content, and the Online Streaming Act, which requires U.S. entertainment companies to promote Canadian programming... “If I were Ottawa,” Sands said, “I would take this as the opportunity to reform the sector … and move towards a more subsidy-oriented system.” While it won’t be politically popular, he noted that “if Canada’s ever going to change the system, having the pressure of the Trump administration driving that change might lead to a way of making a reform that would be a reasonable compromise that would be beneficial to Canadians.” It would also lead to less waste and lower prices... All these policies are similar in their protectionism, according to Nathaniel Baum-Snow, an economics professor at the University of Toronto. “There are some parallels (in digital policies) with supply management and dairy … These acts are making it more costly and more difficult for Canadian consumers to access mostly American digital content,” he said, noting that most consumers would probably appreciate being able to access the products and services for less."
J.J. McCullough on X - "Literally all of Trump’s trade demands from Canada are good, I’m sorry to say. If Carney views protecting these special interest handouts as more important than maintaining free trade with the US then he’s not serving the national interest of Canadians."
Spiting the US is more important than helping Canadians
The line Mark Carney is walking might not be sustainable - The Globe and Mail - "Entering politics, winning the leadership, assuming power, winning the election: all these took a certain audacity – but nothing like the audacity that was required for what came next: stealing virtually all of the Conservatives’ policies. Most observers thought the Liberals had strayed too far to the left under Mr. Trudeau, for either their own good or the country’s. Many predicted that Mr. Carney would steer them toward the centre. But I don’t think anyone quite anticipated how shamelessly he would crib from the Conservative policy book. Consumer carbon pricing was the first to go – the tax was axed, you might say, the day he took office, with a vaguely Trumpian signing ceremony. There followed the cut in the lowest income tax rate; the clampdown on the border; the lifting of virtually all regulatory restrictions on projects of “national interest” under the Building Canada Act (passed with Conservative support!); the massive, multiyear increase in spending on defence to meet our NATO commitments; laws limiting access to bail for certain offences; and the pièce de résistance, the signing of a memorandum of understanding with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, eliminating or easing several of the previous government’s most cherished/hated environmental policies and signalling federal approval for “one or more” heavy oil pipelines to the British Columbia coast. The transformation has been so dramatic, the appropriation of Conservative policies, even Conservative slogans (“Canada’s new government,” “energy superpower”), so brazen, as to lead some to herald a fundamental realignment in Canadian politics. The Carney government, many have said, is the reincarnation of the old Progressive Conservatives – so eerily lifelike that at one point it was rumoured that three or four Conservative MPs would cross the floor to join them, though in the end only two did. Certainly, the Conservatives themselves have been left reeling, grasping for ways to differentiate themselves from their impersonators. For a time, the party seemed to be working itself into hysterics over “runaway” immigration, until someone reminded them that the doors they were demanding be closed had already been slammed shut (this one actually began in the latter days of Mr. Trudeau)... Mr. Carney, who had for months faced little pressure on either flank, may soon find himself fighting on two fronts. A post-review Conservative leader – less grating, more moderate, in tone if not in substance – will be in a better position to appeal to Liberal-Tory switchers, while a revived NDP will tug him to his left, leaving him less room to pitch to conservatives. That’s the theory. In practice, it may not work out that way."
Carney budget doubles down on Trudeau-era policies - "The Carney government yesterday tabled its first budget, which includes major new spending initiatives to promote a so-called “green economy,” and maintains greenhouse gas (GHG)-emission extinction as a central operating principle of Canadian governance. The budget leaves untouched most of the legislative dampers on Canada’s fossil fuel sector (oil, gas, coal) of the last 10 years, while pouring still more money into theoretically “green” projects such as additional (and speculative new types) of nuclear power, electrical transmission to service “green” energy production, continued tax credits for alternative fuels such as hydrogen, and more. Adding insult to injury, the budget discusses “enhancing” (read: likely increasing) the carbon tax on industrial emitters across Canada, and tightening controls over provinces to ensure they meet new federal tax targets. Over the past decade, Ottawa introduced numerous regulations to restrict oil and gas development and again accelerate the growth of the green sector. Key initiatives include Ottawa’s arbitrary cap on GHG emissions for the oil and gas sector, which will restrict production; stricter regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas industry, which will also likely restrict production; “clean electricity” regulations that aim to decarbonize Canada’s electricity generation; Bill C-69 (which introduced subjective ill-defined criteria into the evaluation of energy projects); and Bill C-48, known as the oil tanker ban on the west coast, which limits Canadian exports to Asian and other non-U.S. markets. At the same time, governments launched a wide range of spending initiatives, tax credits and regulations to promote the green economy, which basically includes industries and technologies that aim to reduce pollution and use cleaner energy sources. Between 2014/15 and 2024/25, federal spending on green initiatives (such as subsidizing renewable power, providing incentives for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, funding for building retrofits, and support for alternative fuels such as hydrogen, etc.) went from $0.6 billion to $23 billion—a 38-fold increase. Altogether, since 2014, Ottawa and provincial governments in the country’s four largest provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta) have spent and foregone revenues of at least $158 billion to promote the green sector. Yet, despite the government’s massive spending and heavy regulation to constrain the fossil fuel industry and promote the green sector, the outcomes have been extremely disappointing. In 2014, the green sector accounted for 3.1 per cent of Canada’s economic output, and by 2023, that share had only slightly grown to 3.6 per cent. Put simply, despite massive spending, the sector’s contribution to Canada’s economy has barely changed. In addition, between 2014 and 2023, despite billions in government spending to promote the green sector, only 68,000 new jobs were added in this sector, many of them in already established fields such as waste management and hydroelectric power. The sector’s contribution to national employment remains small, representing only 2 per cent of total jobs in the country. Not surprisingly, this combination of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulation have contributed to Canada’s economic stagnation in recent years. As documented by our colleagues, Canadian living standards—measured by per-person GDP—were lower in the second quarter of 2025 than six years earlier, suggesting we are poorer today than we were six years ago. But for Prime Minister Carney, apparently, past failures do not temper future plans, as the budget either reaffirms or expands upon the failed plans of the past decade. No lessons appear to have even been considered, much less learned from past failures. There had been some hope that Carney’s first budget would include some reflection of how badly the natural resource and energy policies of the Trudeau government have hurt Canada’s economy."
Carney poised to repeat Trudeau’s biggest mistakes - "Despite the new face at the helm, Carney’s budget unfortunately relies on the same failed economic strategy the Trudeau government pursued for a decade. For starters, Carney’s economic plan calls for more government involvement in the economy. Ottawa will become a home developer, pick winners and losers from a bevy of major national energy project proposals, implement a new “climate” strategy, and substantially increase federal spending and borrowing. The budget also keeps income taxes high while failing to reduce the huge regulatory barriers that entrepreneurs, investors and businessowners face from coast to coast. On the fiscal front, the government plans to spend $585.8 billion this year, an increase of $27.5 billion compared to the Trudeau government’s final forecast last December. Consequently, due to increased spending and a decline in projected revenue compared to last year, the federal deficit will reach a projected $78.3 billion this year, which is $36.1 billion more than the Trudeau government’s last forecast. Deficits over the next three years will average $62.3 billion (more than double the Trudeau government’s forecast) and total debt will reach a projected $2.9 trillion by 2029, which is $266.4 billion higher than last fall’s forecast. According to the Carney government, all of this new spending and government intervention will generate more investment and economic activity in the private sector. However, according to the empirical research, when governments run deficits they borrow money and increase the demand for available savings, which pushes up interest rates and makes it more expensive for everyone (governments, individuals, families and businesses) to borrow money. This makes private investment costlier and thus reduces the amount of private investment. In other words, the Carney government’s big deficits will likely crowd out private investment in Canada’s economy. And to pay for today’s spending and borrowing, the government in the future will likely raise taxes (which are already uncompetitive compared to the United States), fuelling more uncertainty for investors, entrepreneurs and businessowners. We’ve seen all this before. For years the Trudeau government increased spending, ran deficits during good times and bad, and inserted itself further into the economy through heavier regulations, taxes, and subsidies provided to favoured firms and industries (a.k.a. corporate welfare). The results were disastrous. Canadian living standards (measured by per-person GDP) declined between mid-2019 and mid-2025. Private-sector job creation was anemic and worker incomes in every province have fallen behind that of American workers in every U.S. state. It didn’t have to be this way then and it doesn’t have to be this way now."
Mark Carney's “Who cares?” has become a mood: But should you care? - "Prime Minister Mark Carney’s off-hand “Who cares?” was delivered with a shrug, but it travelled farther than the Johannesburg press scrum where he said it. Asked when he last spoke to Donald Trump about stalled tariff talks, Carney brushed it off. “Who cares? I mean, it’s a detail. I spoke to him. I’ll speak to him again when it matters.” It was a clipped moment in a long trip overseas, yet it struck a nerve. In a year where tariffs have hit Canadian exporters and rattled cross-border relations, the idea of not caring felt almost rebellious. Some Canadians cheered the confidence. Others winced at the timing. And many asked a quieter question: Can average Canadians afford not to care?"
Canadians divided over whether they trust Carney to manage Trump: poll - "Canadians are growing impatient with the lack of progress in Canada-U.S. trade relations, a new Leger poll suggests. Confidence also appears to be waning over whether Canadians can trust Prime Minister Mark Carney to defend Canada against U.S. President Donald Trump’s political firestorms. “I think time has not been kind to Prime Minister Carney, at this point anyway, in terms of not really showing that he is the man for the job,” said Andrew Enns, executive vice-president of Leger’s Central Canada operations."
Marc Nixon on X - "This friendship could SAVE CANADA 🇨🇦. JD VANCE + JAMIL JIVANI could reset U.S. trade talks FAST. Jivani OFFERED HIS HELP to Mark Carney. Carney GHOSTED HIM. That’s your proof. Liberals don’t want a deal. ACTIONS speaks louder than WORDS."
Carney caught meeting Brookfield execs despite ethics warnings
The PM drops his elbows, at least for now : r/CanadianConservative - "Conservatives 5 months ago: “We can’t fight the US, they are way stronger than Canada. We need to deal with them diplomatically.”
LPC bots: “Omg you are traitors to this country.”
Carney today: “We can’t fight the US, they are way stronger than Canada. We need to deal with them diplomatically.”
LPC bots: “This is exactly why I voted for someone like Carney, he knows what he’s doing.”
Honestly this country is full of r*tards, I just want a ticket out of here now."
