Carney resigned from his position at Brookfields and also publicly divested from all assets except cash and real estate."The real litmus test about leaders is thus, replace Carney with a PC leader, in this case Poilievre and let's say that Pierre is Brookfields guy in the PMO. Would you give him a pass on the conflicts of interest happening?
So where is the conflict of interest?
Further there were multiple ethics hearings in 2025 specifically regarding his Brookfield stock options. That's far from a pass.
I am no legal scholar to comment on whether a bill is draconian.Would you support the draconian bills and pieces that have been thrown into legislation that are clearly overreach?
That is the courts job to do so and they will if someone is charged under those laws.
But on another note, far more far right malcontents, and foreign actors have been a threat to Canada for quite some time.
They need to be dealt with strongly.
Canada’s foreign aid was actually cut by 2.7B in the 2025 budget.Would you support the billions of dollars that Canada has sent to the stupidest things, in third world countries, while Canada and Canadians suffer?
Others were trade stabilizing investments.
So this is a false claim.
I consider Pierre useless.Would the mainstream media give Pierre a pass, like they have Carney and the libs? I'm certain with the way you react to everything non liberal, woke or left, you would be having a conniption calling for Pierre's head."
Just a glorified sloganeer who thinks he can get to power by repeating whatever topics trend on Twitter.
Carney has faced repeated scrutiny in the media, especially in light of his tariff handling, so not sure how the media is giving him a pass
None of your statements are remotely true.
This is just your framing. The Liberals, specifically Carney faces intense scrutiny in the media.MM in Canada does nothing but support the liberals. They are supposed to hold a government accountable, not carry their water. So anything you consume from them is nothing more than propaganda or, "newspeak. "
Today, they are.Same woke rhetoric about fascism/nazis, linking anyone who is conservative with being "far" right and therefore a fascist/nazi. The Conservatives are not fascist or nazis.
There are no conservatives on the right today.
Maple MAGA, MAGA are all fascist ideologies and that is not a rhetorical framing.
They are objectively, on the fascist spectrum.
No, as I said before, it is up to the courts to interpret whether someone's charter rights have been violated on a case by case basis.The liberals are trying to enact laws that are fascist in nature. Overreach by government, when laws already exist on the books. If you have a Global view, you would know that these same types of laws have been passed in the UK and "hurty" feelings arrests have been made. Two tier justice systems. The call for digital IDs (Carney was there when this was rolled out by heir Starmer) WEF, globalist policies. The one bill, C9, that lawyer and Conservative MP Dr. Leslyn Lewis, as well as other lawyers and law professors, have spoke out about. Again, MM has let this drop.
But these laws are very much needed.
I infact advocate for stronger action.
There should be task forces at the RCMP, CSIS and other law enforcement agencies, that need to investigate, charge, arrest and prosecute far right malcontents and Nazis in Canada. Eg: Groups like the Second Sons, Dominion Society of Canada etc.,
They are becoming an increasing threat.
So no, MM has not let this drop.
It just isn't an issue.
You call it hurt feelings. For others it is their safety, security and freedoms.
White Supremacy, is not something we can take lightly in a diverse country like Canada.
Nazism isn't debate.Your playbook is worn and the catchy phrases meant to shut down debate are tiresome.
We don't have open borders, or unfettered immigration.While we live here on earth, that doesn't mean we need to open our borders to unfettered immigration. We need a controlled immigration policy, ending the TFW and student visas handed out.
Immigration has always been controlled because immigrants need visas to come to this country.
Those numbers can be adjusted up or down, and currently it has been adjusted down.
Even I support ending the TFW and Student programs, or atleast heavily regulating them.
But we are already seeing the disastrous results of it.
Real estate has crashed and with negative population growth expected throughout 2026 and beyond, we are going to see further crashes.
The City of Toronto, needs the property taxes and LTT revenue, but now aren't going to get it.
I therefore, expect immigration to pick back up again after a while.
We need immigration to grow and to pay into our social services.
Yes, Globalism is the "why", and Globalization is the "what".Globalism and globalization are two different terms, whereas globalism is an ideology, supported by the WEF, while globalization is to increase trade.
The former drives the latter.
He is not serving two masters.Can your leader serve two masters? One, an unelected body of globalists, who have no stake in Canada or its people, but rather what they can take from it. The other, your country.
He is serving his country.
As I said, Globalism drives globalization.Where having borders isn't a bad thing, bringing in the right people to help grow this country, its economy. People that want a first world experience and want to be a Canadian. And, seeing where Canada fits into Globalization, not globalism.
And we do bring in the right immigrants.
There’s no evidence these were “Brookfield deals” or that Carney directed contracts to a former employer.All the "deals" that you say that Carney got, are nothing more than Brookfield deals. The huge conflict of interest that our MM refuses to address and is why the exemption was slipped into the budget (after its release to all parties, but found by Conservatives in committee) to ministers and companies that get contracts, that they won't have to fear legal issues (except CC), or conflict of interest, with relation to government contracts.
A conflict of interest requires a current financial interest which hasn’t been shown.
Budget items reviewed in committee aren’t “slipped in,” and they don’t override the Conflict of Interest Act.
This is insinuation by association, not proof of wrongdoing.
Your post is nothing more than a rant peppered with far right rhetoric, conspiracy theories and misinformation.
Last edited:






