POLITICAL PREDICTIONS FOR 2026

[ExFlyer]

55 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Of course he is.  One of his campaign promises was to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers.  He even set a date it would be done by.

That has not happened and we haven't heard another word about it.

He did. Had a meeting where the provinces said they would and...well the provinces change their minds or are waffling.

There are no federal regulations or rules that are holding the province back...it is. the provinces holding it back.

As I said....he was aware of the severe and sometimes hostile provincial inter fighting.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

Liberal supporters seem not just content with crumbs falling from table, they are thrilled by them.

Who is going to build a pipeline if there's a tanker ban?  You can get the oil into the pipe, but you can't get it to world markets.

This is so basic.

It's like telling a manufacturer of widgets that the entire world wants - Yes, build the widgets, box them up for shipping.  Oh, by the way, semi trailers, airplanes and trains are not allowed on the highways surrounding you.

Are Liberal supporters that daft?  Is it the 14th booster?

 

Thing is...there has to be interest shown and so far...regardless of reasons. there is no interest shown.

The tanker ban will go away if someone rally wants to build it.

It is people like you so daft as to not see no one wants to spend the money.

 

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I do not think he was aware of the severe and sometimes hostile provincial inter fighting.

You said he was not aware of it. ☝️

 

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

As I said....he was aware of the severe and sometimes hostile provincial inter fighting.

Was he aware or was he not?

You said he was not aware, now you're saying you said the opposite.

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

there is no interest shown.

The tanker ban will go away if someone rally wants to build it.

There is no interest shown BECAUSE THERE IS A TANKER BAN, thus - no way to get the oil to market.

You're relying on a "Trust me, bro" from the Net Zero nutbar that the ban will go away if there is a builder?

Where are you getting that from?

Even Smith was not able to get Carney to bend on the tanker ban.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

You said he was not aware of it. ☝️

 

Was he aware or was he not?

You said he was not aware, now you're saying you said the opposite.

I think he knew there were issues but not at the severity of the discourses.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

There is no interest shown BECAUSE THERE IS A TANKER BAN, thus - no way to get the oil to market.

You're relying on a "Trust me, bro" from the Net Zero nutbar that the ban will go away if there is a builder?

Where are you getting that from?

Even Smith was not able to get Carney to bend on the tanker ban.

Look, if there was interest...there would be movement on many things but...there is no interest shown.

Nope, I am saying that no one is stepping forward so... it goes nowhere.

Smith never asked for anything but a MOU and she got it...if she does something and, so far she has sat on her hands.

"For years, oil tanker traffic has been prohibited off the waters of northern British Columbia in order to protect environmentally sensitive coastlines from disaster. 

But the federal government is now open to the idea of changing its moratorium."

"It applies to vessels carrying a cargo of more than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil or persistent oil products, such as bitumen and Bunker C fuel, which dissipate slowly and can linger in the environment.

The moratorium does not apply to refined oil products, like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, as well as liquefied natural gas (LNG)."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-oil-tanker-ban-explained-9.7016899

BTW, the "tanker ban" has been in existent since the 1980's. Lots of governments have been in power since then.

Put you bias aside and look at it practically and logically. The feds do not control or will not pay for everything and expect other jurisdictions do do their part.

[Goddess]

If "Trust me, bro" from the most scandal-riddled, corrupt government in Canadian history is good enough for you, well....OK then.

It might not be to actual investors, though.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

There is no interest shown BECAUSE THERE IS A TANKER BAN, thus - no way to get the oil to market.

Sure there is, go east. Or send more south to Vancouver.

In the meantime and in addition to the other environmental reasons for preventing tankers in the North Pacific is the existence of rogue waves, up to 35 meters high - as high as a 10 story building.

Even the rogue wave recorded not much more than 7 miles away from me was as big as a 5 story building.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I think he knew there were issues but not at the severity of the discourses.

The pipeline companies have been pretty damn straight up with him

So the first nations and you have to be 17 different levels of stupid to think that twice you can hold secret negotiations and planning excluding the first nations who will be directly impacted and not have them be furious at you

In fact it's so incompetent that it leads me to believe that it was deliberate. He's poisoning the well, he's getting the parties involved so upset that there's no universe where a pipeline will proceed. While still pretending to be in favor of it

@Goddess Is right, nobody's going to believe the whole trust me bull crap and nobody's going to believe in his magic fairyland law either. And now the first nations don't trust him on top of it and nobody's going to build if they know the first nations are going to put up a massive fight.

[ExFlyer]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The pipeline companies have been pretty damn straight up with him

So the first nations and you have to be 17 different levels of stupid to think that twice you can hold secret negotiations and planning excluding the first nations who will be directly impacted and not have them be furious at you

In fact it's so incompetent that it leads me to believe that it was deliberate. He's poisoning the well, he's getting the parties involved so upset that there's no universe where a pipeline will proceed. While still pretending to be in favor of it

@Goddess Is right, nobody's going to believe the whole trust me bull crap and nobody's going to believe in his magic fairyland law either. And now the first nations don't trust him on top of it and nobody's going to build if they know the first nations are going to put up a massive fight.

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.

 

 

 

Edited January 11 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

What pipeline companies??? There are none that go to the west coast. LOL

 

 

 

Enbridge stupid.  You know, the ones who proposed the northern gateway in the first place. 

Could you PLEASE read a LITTLE before you say STUPID things like that? What kind of a twat do you have to be to pretend there's no companies considering pipelines to the coast?  They came right out and said "under the current regulatory environment we won't be intereseted in building in canada, we'll build in the states". and also said "there's no point in building a pipeline to nowhere" meaning the tanker ban won't let anyone ship oil even if there WAS a pipeline. 

The government says they'll "consider" Making an "exception" If a proposal is made that they like the looks of. But it costs tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to put a proposal together there's no guarantee the government is going to "Like" it.

There are companies like Kinder Morgan and Enbridge who will consider pipelines but they're not even going to give it a glance as long as there's regulations in place that absolutely prevent it from being built. Carney knows this, they've told him in public and in private and everyone knew it before they even said anything. The illusion that he will promote pipelines while making sure that there will never be a private proponent

[ExFlyer]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Enbridge stupid.  You know, the ones who proposed the northern gateway in the first place. 

Could you PLEASE read a LITTLE before you say STUPID things like that? What kind of a twat do you have to be to pretend there's no companies considering pipelines to the coast?  They came right out and said "under the current regulatory environment we won't be intereseted in building in canada, we'll build in the states". and also said "there's no point in building a pipeline to nowhere" meaning the tanker ban won't let anyone ship oil even if there WAS a pipeline. 

...

 

"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.

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

"Enbridge does not own a major oil pipeline to the West Coast, but they own and operate the significant Westcoast natural gas pipeline system

 

But was prepared to bulid one and invested hundreds of millions in it before the liberals passed laws cancelling it. 

So there are absolutely oil pipeline companies that go to the west coast. Just no pipelines. Because the liberals shut it down.  And are still doing so. 

Further your question was: 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

What pipeline companies??? There are none that go to the west coast.

Embridge absolutely has pipelines servicing the west coast, They just don't supply it to a port.  You did NOT specify oil pipelines until AFTER you realized you're wrong   And they're not the only ones operating pipelines that go to the coast. 

But embridge is the one that has actually said previously they would build an oil pipeline 

Sigh, no matter how stupid you are or how wrong you are, we can always count on you to double down and find a way to be MOAR stupid. 

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But was prepared to bulid one and invested hundreds of millions in it before the liberals passed laws cancelling it. 

So there are absolutely oil pipeline companies that go to the west coast. Just no pipelines. Because the liberals shut it down.  And are still doing so. 

Further your question was: 

Embridge absolutely has pipelines servicing the west coast, They just don't supply it to a port.  You did NOT specify oil pipelines until AFTER you realized you're wrong   And they're not the only ones operating pipelines that go to the coast. 

But embridge is the one that has actually said previously they would build an oil pipeline 

Sigh, no matter how stupid you are or how wrong you are, we can always count on you to double down and find a way to be MOAR stupid. 

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

[ExFlyer]

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.

[ExFlyer]

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

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

BS. Prove your statement...we will all wait....for a very long time LOL

Enbridge CEO urges tanker ban end, says no company will build 'pipeline to nowhere' - Business in Vancouver

Release Details - Enbridge Inc.

Google AI

Enbridge's CEO, Greg Ebel, has clearly stated the company will not build a new major export pipeline to the West Coast under current Canadian regulatory conditions. 

Key barriers cited by Enbridge include:

• The Federal Tanker Ban: The current federal ban on oil tanker traffic on the northern coast of British Columbia makes building an export pipeline to that region unfeasible (a "pipeline to nowhere"), as the oil cannot be legally exported via that route.
• Regulatory Uncertainty/Delays: Ebel points to the "competitiveness disaster" of the last decade for Canadian projects, referencing significant financial losses incurred when the previous Northern Gateway project was initially approved, then later canceled by the federal government after years of regulatory and legal challenges.
• Investment Climate: The company is hesitant to commit the substantial private capital required for such projects without significant changes to the regulatory environment, preferring to invest in opportunities within the United States where conditions are perceived as more favorable. 

 

 

LOL whoooops!!!  Wasn't that long a wait after all  LOLOL

Sorry kid, you were wrong. And the funny thing is I posted all this stuff here before. And there's more where that came from

Enbridge was in the last stages of starting construction on a pipeline to the west coast when trudeau cancelled it.  Carne kept those cancellations in place. Pretty simple. 

Edited January 13 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Pierre Poilievre — FACT CHECK (Not Opinions)

 

 

Sorry, but those are opinions.

The last time we did this you said pick any one and prove that I'm wrong. And I picked one and proved you were wrong 

You're just big mad because you were wrong about the pipeline thing 

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

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.

Nothing actually changed. 

Trade figures are expected to be the same or worse for the final quarter of 2025 as they were before.

Carney is failed and you are aware of that. That's why you're trying to post massive long word salads Desperately nobody actually reads them and everybody thinks there must be something to them.

Carney is failing hard and if he wasn't you would be able to present specific things that had gotten better and you can't.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

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

Oh and just for MORE fun....

No 'business case' for pipelines because Liberals want it that way | National Post

LOL 😜 

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Enbridge CEO urges tanker ban end, says no company will build 'pipeline to nowhere' - Business in Vancouver

.....

 

 

LOL whoooops!!!  Wasn't that long a wait after all  LOLOL

Sorry kid, you were wrong. And the funny thing is I posted all this stuff here before. And there's more where that came from

Enbridge was in the last stages of starting construction on a pipeline to the west coast when trudeau cancelled it.  Carne kept those cancellations in place. Pretty simple. 

 

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

 

Sorry, but those are opinions.

....

 

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh and just for MORE fun....

No 'business case' for pipelines because Liberals want it that way | National Post

LOL 😜 

 

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.

[ironstone]

18 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

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

That's a really long list. And yet, for all that...

Canada's economy contracted in 2025, experiencing significant fluctuations throughout the year.

Economic Performance Overview
Q1 2025: The economy initially showed some resilience, with positive growth.
Q2 2025: There was a notable decline, with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contracting by 1.6% (annualized) due to sharp drops in goods exports to the U.S. and weakened business investment.
Q3 2025: The economy rebounded somewhat, experiencing a growth of 0.6% over the previous quarter, but this was still reflective of previous contractions.
Q4 2025: Early signs indicated that the economy was likely to shrink slightly again, mainly due to a 0.3% contraction in October, marking the steepest decline in nearly three years.

[blackbird]

On 1/10/2026 at 2:50 PM, eyeball said:

North Pacific is the existence of rogue waves, up to 35 meters high - as high as a 10 story building.

What a fairy tale that is.  Maybe there was a rogue wave 35 meters high five thousand years ago when the great flood occurred and Noah and his family were in the ark. 

Countless ships travel through the north Pacific ocean now.  How do you think oil, LNG, agricultural products, and minerals are shipped from Alaska, Prince Rupert, BC, or Vancouver BC to Japan, China, and Asia now?

Edited January 13 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

5 minutes ago, ironstone said:

That's a really long list. And yet, for all that...

Canada's economy contracted in 2025, experiencing significant fluctuations throughout the year.

Economic Performance Overview
Q1 2025: The economy initially showed some resilience, with positive growth.
Q2 2025: There was a notable decline, with the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contracting by 1.6% (annualized) due to sharp drops in goods exports to the U.S. and weakened business investment.
Q3 2025: The economy rebounded somewhat, experiencing a growth of 0.6% over the previous quarter, but this was still reflective of previous contractions.
Q4 2025: Early signs indicated that the economy was likely to shrink slightly again, mainly due to a 0.3% contraction in October, marking the steepest decline in nearly three years.

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. 

[ironstone]

16 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

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. 

Comparison of Canada and U.S. Economic Performance Since 2015
Since 2015, Canada's economy has generally lagged behind that of the United States across multiple metrics, particularly in terms of real GDP growth and GDP per capita. 

I don't expect any positives from Carney since basically, it's the same team with a new coach. By and large, the policies are the same. The debt will continue to soar. Unemployment will be higher than in the US. No signs yet that grocery prices are coming down. Carney doesn't seem to be even slightly concerned about getting a deal done with the US. (maybe that's because he is personally so heavily invested in that country?)

But as long as there are just enough voters who vote based on perceived likeability of the opposition leader, while they ignore our mediocre economy, Carney will stay in power.

[eyeball]

26 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What a fairy tale that is. 

Nope, they've actually been measured from satellites in orbit.