ExFlyer

The conservatives can propose anything they want but the fact is...they are not in power (and Canadians chose to not have any one of the past 4 leaders lead them). But conservatives crap all over Carney for his proposals and whine he is doing nothing with the MOU's and agreements with other countries yet, all you have is proposals that have no chance of ever happening and even if they could win an election, have no guarantees that any of the rhetorical proposals would even be there. Blowing smoke up Canadian a$$es seems to be the conservative way Another tactic is to compare Canadas economy with American. Here are some facts to absorb: "America’s national debt just hit a number so massive it doesn't even feel real anymore: thirty-eight trillion dollars (U.S. Treasury). While most of us see that number and think "economic disaster," the truth is much more complicated. It’s not just a debt; it’s the foundation of a global system that Canada is deeply invested in. There’s a common myth that America’s rivals own all this debt, but that’s just not true. About seventy-six percent of it is actually owned by Americans themselves—their own banks and pension funds (Federal Reserve). But it’s that other twenty-four percent held by foreign nations that acts as the "fuel" for the global economy (U.S. Treasury TIC Data). Surprisingly, Canada is one of the biggest players here. We’re currently a top-five creditor to the United States, holding over four hundred and twenty-six billion dollars of their debt (U.S. Treasury). That works out to roughly ten thousand dollars for every single person living in Canada (Statistics Canada). We aren't just neighbours; we're one of the primary pillars holding up their financial house. So, why are we lending them so much? It’s because the U.S. relies on this global cash to keep its interest rates low. When countries like Canada buy their debt, it keeps the American economy—and our biggest export market—stable and predictable (International Monetary Fund). It’s a massive "recycling program" for the dollars we earn from selling them our oil and cars. But here’s the scary part. If the world suddenly stopped lending, the U.S. would have to spike interest rates to attract new money (Goldman Sachs Research). Because our economies are tethered, the Bank of Canada would likely have to follow suit to protect our currency (Bank of Canada). That means your mortgage in Toronto or Calgary could skyrocket because of a funding gap in Washington. It’s a giant, interconnected suspension bridge. The U.S. needs the world to keep the cables tight, and we need that bridge to stay level so we can keep trading. We don't just "lend" them money; we’re essentially buying an insurance policy on our own economic stability (World Bank)."

Yeah...your neighbours wanna now what ya do LOL Keep your curtains closed Oh and watch out for those traffic cams and security cams and web cams etc everywhere.....

Good grief..... Your next door neighbour or anyone that wants can buy a drone and "spy" on you and do. They are all over the place nowadays. Don't let your paranoia drive you to the basement LOL

So...it is the cost of your dental work...not the reimbursement of the CDCP or your union dental plan. All dental plans have annual limitations....first time you used it and found that out. That and if you have a dental plan...you are not eligible for the CDCP...

Are you really saying it was Carney that devised, ordered and conducted the move of a portion of a huge conglomerate from one country to another??? Or perhaps it was a move decided upon and ordered by the board of directors? I think knowing the facts is quite important "Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) moved its head office from Toronto to New York primarily to get listed on major U.S. stock indexes, like the S&P 500, to attract a larger pool of U.S. investors and boost its stock value, as the U.S. holds most of its employees and revenue . This move, a technical change, aimed to simplify its corporate structure and gain visibility for broader global capital, allowing index funds tracking U.S. companies to buy its stock" VeryiImportant to understand "BAM vs. Brookfield Corp.: Only the asset management arm (BAM) moved to New York; its parent company, Brookfield Corporation, remains headquartered in Toronto." So, it is not what you think or thought.

The fact is, you have no idea how much Carney has invested and with whom. "Mark Carney's assets, subject to public disclosure as Canadian Prime Minister, include a diverse portfolio managed in a blind trust, featuring significant holdings in Brookfield Asset Management (options/shares) and other major international firms (Tesla, Google, Amazon, etc.)," "Most of his investments, including stock options and shares from his time at Brookfield and other firms, were placed into a blind trust managed by a third party to avoid conflicts of interest" "He disclosed these assets to the Ethics Commissioner within the mandated timeframe after becoming Prime Minister," " Carney held approximately 41,000 deferred share units (DSUs) and 303,049 stock options. As of late 2024/early 2025, unexercised stock options were valued at roughly $6.8 million USD. Stripe, Inc.: He held shares in the payments processor where he previously served as a board member. Diverse Stock Portfolio: His ethics disclosure included a 15-page list of shares in over 560 companies managed by a third party. Key holdings included: Technology/American Giants: Tesla, Alphabet (Google), Philip Morris International, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Walmart, and Fox." ." That statement is not entirely accurate; "Brookfield is a global investment firm with both Canadian and American roots and operations worldwide, and is not comprised solely of American companies. " "Brookfield Corporation is a Canadian multinational company headquartered in Toronto. Its primary subsidiary, Brookfield Asset Management, moved its headquarters to New York City in 2024 to simplify its financial reporting structure for U.S. investors, but it remains heavily linked to its Canadian parent." "Brookfield has over $1 trillion in assets under management across numerous countries and continents, focusing on real assets like real estate, infrastructure, renewable power, and private equity. It has a significant presence in the U.S., but also owns and operates assets in Brazil, India, Europe, Australia, and many other regions." "Brookfield is owned by a mix of major institutional investors, public shareholders, and its own parent company, Brookfield Corporation, which holds a significant controlling stake (nearly 73%), with Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) being a key part of the structure, overseen by CEO Bruce Flatt. Major institutional holders include Vanguard, while the public and other institutions own substantial portions, with recent insider activity showing mixed signals but overall stability from the parent company's control."

"While Canada and the United States have developed closely integrated economies, Canada has never been the economic equivalent of the U.S. in terms of overall size or average individual wealth. The U.S. economy has consistently been much larger and more powerful Key Economic Differences and Historical Context Overall Economic Size: The U.S. has a significantly larger population and a far more diversified, industrialized economy that developed earlier than Canada's. Canada, despite being the world's 10th largest economy as of the early 2000s, has a smaller population base than any other G7 member, and its economy is often characterized as a "branch-plant economy" relative to its large neighbor. Trade Dependency: Canada's economy is highly dependent on trade with the U.S.; approximately three-quarters of Canadian merchandise exports are sent south of the border. In contrast, trade with Canada makes up a much smaller percentage of the U.S. economy, a point that has given the U.S. significant leverage in trade negotiations."

Carney is Canadian and working for Canada. Living across the street from homes with mansions does not make you comparable. We are not as bad as some of you doomsayers are making it out. "Canada's economy is a strong, developed market (9th largest globally by GDP) with high immigration and stable growth but faces challenges in per capita GDP growth, falling behind peers like the U.S. due to lower labor productivitymeaning living standards aren't rising as fast as total economic output, despite strengths in stability, low debt (G7), and resource wealth." "Canada excels in overall economic size, stability, and government fiscal health within the G7 but struggles to translate its total economic growth into rising per person prosperity, largely due to lagging productivity and investment compared to leading developed economies"

Bottom line is Canada is doing quite well by world standards. The US has 400 million people and one of the worlds largest producers and economy...Canada has 40 million and we sold all our production to 3rd world countries so we could but things cheaper. Sounds like self inflicted wound to me. And don't venture off into "young people can't by a home" territory either. "trend showing a gradual increase in the homebuying age over the decades. For comparison: In 1985, the median age was 29. By 1995, the median age had increased slightly to between 30 and 31 years of age. . "The average age of a Canadian first-time home buyer in 2025 is around 36" So in 35 to 45 years the average home buyers ages increased by 4 to 6 years.

"Enbridge, and every other for profit company are going to build projects that make money." like Brookfield?? LOL Anyway BS from you..as usual LOL I can not expect anything less from a LOSER like you LOL

Canada vs the US has never been a close comparison. we are not and would never be American and if you are so concerned about us vs the US...go to the US. Canada is independent and does well on the world stage.

Bottom line...the worlds economy contracted. Canada is not so bad off. Canada's economy in early 2026 presents a mixed picture: it is fundamentally stable and resilient with low debt among G7 nations, but faces challenges from weak productivity, trade uncertainty, and a decline in real GDP per capita. Economic Overview Overall Position: Canada has a large, diversified, and open economy, ranking as the world's 10th largest by nominal GDP in 2025. It is a member of the G7 and G20, with a stable financial sector. Recent Performance: The economy avoided a widely predicted recession and has shown resilience. Real GDP expanded in the third quarter of 2025 after a contraction in the second, with a modest increase expected for the year overall. Inflation and Interest Rates: Inflation has largely returned to the Bank of Canada's target range of 1-3%, leading to interest rate cuts. The Bank of Canada held its policy rate steady at 2.25% in December 2025.

Yeah...a lot of rhetoric and BS and excuses form Enbridge when they have its committed money elsewhere. Enbridge officials have indicated a willingness to explore market-diversifying projects, provided there is clear customer demand (long-term contracts) and "real provincial and federal legislative change" regarding climate policy, regulatory timelines, and Indigenous participation. To explore is saying nothing. Everything else is rhetoric. Make a proposal and maybe they will have credibility. Enbridge is committing $1.4 billion USD to making pipelines to the US better. That does not bode well for any West Coast pipeline. "Mainline Optimization Phase 1 (MLO1): Enbridge reached a final investment decision (FID) in late 2025 to spend US$1.4 billion to increase the capacity of its Mainline system by 150,000 barrels per day (bpd)." Enbridge is blowing smoke at West Coast pipelines.

When Pierre Poilievre says “All the showboating and theatrical signing ceremonies have amounted to nothing,” that claim only holds if you treat governing as performance — and ignore what has actually changed. Since March 2025, the Carney government has taken a deliberately different approach: fewer slogans, fewer rage clips, and policy decisions designed to change conditions over months and years, not news cycles. That doesn’t mean Canadians feel relief everywhere yet. It means the work being done doesn’t fit into a protest chant, and some of it is only now becoming measurable. Start with trade ... but measure it honestly In fall 2025, Canada finalized a trade agreement with Indonesia, a country of more than 280 million people and one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world. Under that agreement: • Over 95% of Canadian exports to Indonesia now face reduced or eliminated tariffs • Previously applied tariffs ranged from 5% to 30% • Priority sectors include agriculture, agri-food, forestry, energy services, and advanced manufacturing This does not mean exports surged overnight, and there was no expectation that they would. What has happened since ratification is more modest but real: • Export Development Canada has reported increased non-U.S. financing uptake tied to Southeast Asia • Canadian trade missions in 2025–26 were reweighted toward Asia-Pacific markets, not the U.S. • Multiple sector-level MOUs were signed alongside the agreement, particularly in agri-food and clean industrial inputs This is early-stage capacity building, not a finished result, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. But dismissing it as “nothing” ignores how trade actually works. Crucially, Indonesia is illustrative, not determinative. Beyond Indonesia: what diversification looks like in practice For decades, roughly 75% of Canadian exports have gone to the United States. That concentration is not ideological, it’s structural risk. Since 2025, diversification has meant specific policy reallocations, not rhetoric: • Federal trade missions shifted toward Asia-Pacific and non-U.S. partners • Export Development Canada redirected risk guarantees and financing tools toward non-U.S. market entry • Canada deliberately avoided retaliatory escalation during renewed U.S. protectionist pressure, reducing spillover damage The measurable outcome so far is risk reduction, not export dominance. Canada is less exposed to U.S. election-cycle tariff shocks than it was two years ago, not immune, but less fragile. That is an observable difference, even if it doesn’t lower prices tomorrow. International credibility ... where results are indirect but real “Stabilizing credibility” can sound vague, so let’s separate intent from effect. Since March 2025, Canada has: • Returned to multi-year defence and Ukraine commitments coordinated through NATO, not one-off announcements • Avoided trade retaliation spirals that historically raise domestic costs • Maintained predictable positions in trade and security forums, reducing uncertainty premiums for exporters and investors No, this doesn’t show up on a grocery receipt. But investor confidence directly affects borrowing costs, currency stability, and inflation expectations. Those effects are gradual, and invisible until they fail. Housing: where the trade-off is unavoidable Housing is where Poilievre’s argument resonates most, and for good reason. The Carney government did not inherit a quick fix. What it has changed since 2025 is how federal money is used: • Funding is now tied to completed units, not just approvals • Infrastructure and permitting support is conditional on delivery timelines • Supply growth is prioritized over demand-side subsidies that inflate prices This is a medium-term strategy. It does not make rent cheaper this year, and the Carney government does not pretend otherwise. But supply is the only lever that permanently bends prices down. Voters are right to be impatient. Governments are wrong if they chase impatience with policies that make inflation worse. Cost-of-living, and the argument Poilievre gets right (and wrong) Poilievre’s framing resonates because Canadians feel worse off now. He argues that: • Structural work takes too long • Credibility doesn’t pay the rent • Outcomes should be measured in lived relief, not future access That emotional diagnosis is correct. Where it fails is the prescription. Global inflation, interest rates, and supply constraints cannot be overridden by slogans or unfunded tax cuts. Since 2025, the Carney government has chosen restraint where past governments often chased applause: • No unfunded tax-cut promises • Emphasis on cost containment and macro-stability • Preservation of investor confidence, which directly affects inflation persistence This restraint is politically costly. It is also economically necessary. Short-term, medium-term, structural, and why timing matters Be clear about the categories: Short-term • Targeted supports • Inflation easing largely driven by global factors Medium-term • Housing units under construction • Export growth following new market access Structural • Trade diversification • Reduced U.S. exposure • Institutional credibility • Lower long-term inflation risk Poilievre labels everything outside the first category “nothing.” That is effective opposition politics, but it confuses immediacy with impact. The political risk ... acknowledged, not ignored Structural gains often arrive after voters decide. That is the real gamble. The Carney government is betting that Canadians can distinguish between: • policies that feel good now and fail later • policies that feel slow now and hold later That bet may or may not pay off politically. But calling the work “nothing” only works if Canadians believe governing should feel like a rally instead of a responsibility. Carney’s government has focused on capacity, not catharsis. On resilience, not rage. On long-term advantage, not short-term applause. You don’t have to like, or agree with, every decision to see the difference. Saying “nothing has been done” may raise money. It just isn’t honest, and Canadians are increasingly capable of seeing why

Nope...he was an A hole...like PP. That is why Canadians did not vote for him or the past 3 leaders in the past 4 elections . And poor wesconman...no like the down arrows??? Spoil your day? LOL

Pierre Poilievre — FACT CHECK (Not Opinions) Ty to Moniz Anthony for this excerpt * Career politician since age 25 * Virtually no work history outside politics * Vested in a full taxpayer-funded MP pension in his early 30s * Pension entitlement secured far earlier than most Canadians ever will * Lived at Stornoway, the 19-room official residence of the Leader of the Opposition In 2008, its assessed value was approximately $4,225,000 (an estimate of market value). * Stornoway is publicly owned, staffed, and maintained by taxpayers $78,000 / year The residence comes with a staff team, including: * A chef * A chauffeur * A household administrator�— these are publicly funded positions associated with maintaining Stornoway, not personal hires. * In the 2025 federal election, Poilievre lost his seat in his own riding of Carleton — a notable political upset. According to the Official Residences Act, only the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons (i.e., a sitting MP) is entitled to live in Stornoway. Because he no longer had a seat, Poilievre technically lost the entitlement to live there after the election. However, Andrew Scheer, the interim Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, allowed Poilievre and his family to continue living there while Poilievre sought a new seat via a by-election. * This arrangement was justified by the party as a cost-saving (avoiding moving costs) while waiting for Poilievre’s by-election. * * Took him over a decade, (11 years of part tine studies) to finish a 4 year undergraduate degree * Spent 20+ years in Parliament * Very few of his sponsored bills ever became law * Legislative impact nonexistent relative to time served * Political brand built primarily on attack rhetoric, not enacted policy ,no track record . * Opposes or votes against many tax-funded social supports for canadian workers while personally benefiting from those same taxpayer-funded privileges Reality Check * Not anti-elite * Not anti-establishment * Not a “working-class outsider” * Not a Robin Hood He is the political class. Bottom Line If you hate “career politicians,” If you hate “taxpayer-funded elites,” If you hate “Ottawa insiders and grifters ”— Pierre Poilievre is exactly what you claim to oppose.

BS. Prove your statement...we will all wait....for a very long time LOL Laws cancelling a pipeline to the ports?? Prove it. Embridge (?) pipeline to the port is what is at issue. Their have been lots of pipelines to the US for a long time and that is not the issue...the issue is a pipeline to sell our oil to other than the US. You cannot have a discussion with out name calling and throwing insults....it is no wonder you are such a LOSER

Clearly you do not pay attention. He has made great strides in dealings with other nations. Benefits for Canadians will occur as existing deals expire... Your bias obviously filters real activity.

And that is why Carney travels the world to discuss opportunities with other nations. Investments = trade but it takes time to get both. Other nations are not like a store where you walk in and pay and walk out with a deal...deals take time to evolve.

I agree somewhat but, sitting on your hands, complaining and unable to know what is going on because you are not cleared to get information does Canada no good. At least Carney is travelling the world and talking about and discussing Canada with other nations to try and get investment back into Canada. It is not like walking into Walmart and walking out with product... international deals take time for old deals to expire and new ones to begin.

"Enbridge does not own a major oil pipeline to the West Coast, but they own and operate the significant Westcoast natural gas pipeline system in British Columbia, which moves gas to the US Pacific Northwest. While Enbridge has discussed potential new oil pipelines to the coast, no such project is currently operating, and they focus on moving energy, including natural gas and oil via other routes." So,where are the proposals and by who??? The tanker ban can be eliminated by a stroke of the pen in a few minutes.... and would be if there was a proposal. Seems the on "saying stupid things" is you...again.

Foreign investment is trade... they invest and buy....buy Canadian companies in particular.

What pipeline companies??? There are none that go to the west coast. LOL If you think the indigenous cannot halt projects, well it is you that is 17 different levels of stupid LOL. I have said from the beginning that Alberta, the indigenous and BC are the ones that will be the problems for a new pipeline. When did Carney say "trust me"??? What parties has he upset??? The Alberta conservatives? Indigenous? BC NDP? They are far from upset...they just want what they can get for nothing. Point is, the mention of the tanker ban was brought up implying no one would build it with the ban in place. Fact is...the tanker ban can be in place for many many years and not have effect on the pipeline. It takes decades to build the pipeline and 15 minutes to lift the ban.

Yeah, it has been 15 years since Harper made the deal with China and thanks to Harper...there are at least 16 more years to go with that deal. The Chinese were not scared of Harper nor Trudeau because they had a great deal given to them by Harper. "The Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA), signed by the Harper government in 2012 and ratified in 2014, binds Canada for a minimum of 31 years, locking in terms until at least 2045, with an option to extend for another 15 years, making it a long-term, potentially controversial commitment with significant investor-state dispute resolution clauses"

And yet it wasConservative PM Harper that had " " dealings with China centered on strengthening economic ties, most notably through the secretive signing and later ratification of the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) in 2012/2014, which protected Chinese investments in Canada but drew heavy criticism for locking Canada in for 31 years, allowing secret tribunals, and potentially limiting regulatory power. His government also signed other deals for trade, currency, uranium, and customs information sharing, while publicly raising human rights issues, though FIPA remained the most controversial "deal".