Cameron Wigle, CFA

@KevinKleinwpg @ErsSlade Yeah, we heard. You don’t have to be born in Canada or even LIVE in Canada. You may never even have stepped foot in Canada - but you can be Canadian, your kids can be Canadians and even VOTE! That means Canadian citizenship is WORTHLESS. Time to cancel Canada!

New: Brampton, Canada which has the highest foreign born population in the Western world at 59.1% - now has the highest insurance rates in Canada - mortgage delinquencies up 10x in 6 years -a car accident rate 5x the national average -Fire deaths 3x higher per capita

Capitalism has proved so successful at reducing poverty that socialists had to create the concept of “relative poverty” to keep themselves in business.

🇨🇦🚨The math in Canada isn’t adding up. A refugee receives $5,149.11/mo TAX FREE. Meanwhile, the average Canadian worker takes home $4,100–$4,800/mo after taxes and that’s considered a "good" salary.🤔 Why is it more profitable to arrive than to work? 🙇🏻 #Canada #Economy #CostOfLiving

@ANobilius @freedomislifex @valdombre Multiculturalism has never worked, and especially because of those with your tribalist mindset. You really are dumb.

That is exactly my point. Multiculturalism works when people come here to contribute, integrate, work hard, build businesses, pay taxes, and strengthen the country. Canada has benefited enormously from immigrants like that. But in Canada, multiculturalism has increasingly been replaced by what I would call multi-traditionalism. When the quality of screening, enforcement, and integration standards falls, the average standard falls with it. At that point, we are no longer really talking about culture in the higher sense of the word. We are often talking merely about imported traditions. And not every tradition is culture. More importantly, not every tradition deserves to be welcomed, protected, or normalized in Canada. Just look at the scandal last year around public behaviour on the beaches of Lake Huron. Some may try to excuse such behaviour as tradition or different customs, but that is exactly the point: not every tradition is culture, and not every imported custom deserves to be accepted, protected, or normalized in Canada. So the issue is not where people come from. The issue is whether Canada is selecting, verifying, integrating, and enforcing standards properly. But we must be very careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The goal should not be to turn against immigrants as a whole. The goal should be to make sure the best people stay - the people who work, build, contribute, and respect Canadian standards - while doing everything legally and politically possible to ensure that those who abused the system, falsified documents, or came here to exploit Canada are removed from the country. When the best-qualified people leave because they cannot find proper work, while people who exploited the system stay, that is not a success story. That is a policy failure.

I see no downsides.

@ANobilius @personapurchase @valdombre Dude and what comes with it? You're ethnically self-interested period. Did you ever think others don't agree with your take?

Any country with a smart government and a serious society wants to attract ready-made, world-class professionals - engineers, doctors, IT specialists, scientists, entrepreneurs, and people who can strengthen the economy. That was exactly what Canada's immigration system was once designed to do. It was once considered one of the best immigration systems in the world. But you cannot invite skilled professionals and then fail to build the infrastructure to absorb them, license them properly, and help them find work that matches their qualifications. That is not entitlement. That is basic national strategy. Unfortunately, Canada no longer seems to have a smart government. It turned one of the best immigration systems in the world into a fiction - a system that too often produces only more Brampton-style dysfunction instead of real integration, productivity, and prosperity. And judging by your answer, Canada may also be losing the ability to think strategically as a society. Silicon Valley did not "owe" Indian professionals anything either. But it built an ecosystem where the best of them could work, build companies, innovate, pay taxes, and help create enormous prosperity. And today, Silicon Valley benefits massively from that talent. That is the difference between a country that knows how to use talent and a country that imports people without a plan, wastes the best ones, keeps the worst ones, and then blames everyone except its own failed policy.

@ANobilius @valdombre "Canada failed to offer them decent employment opportunities". ...the mindset right there!

I would not be celebrating this. Different kinds of people came from India. The best ones — real engineers, programmers, doctors, and people who came here to work for their own prosperity and for Canada’s prosperity — are indeed leaving now, because Canada failed to offer them decent employment opportunities. But all kinds of fraudsters who falsified immigration documents are not planning to go anywhere. They will stay here, live off the system, and abuse the country’s social assistance programs indefinitely. So I do not see any reason to celebrate when I hear about these hundreds of thousands leaving.

It’s a real problem I am entirely open to the idea that MPs, MPPs, senators, etc must be natural-born citizens with no dual citizenship

Who came up with this complete bullshit idea that we somehow have to forsake our children's future for the entire third world? Stick a fork in me. I'm DONE!!

Curious where these activist docs are when we offer MAID to our citizens in place of timely or available care.

Can someone ask Mark Carney this: As an economist, you know that you can't use CPP and QPP assets for the Federal debt, so why do you use them in your calculations to lie to Canadians that our debt position is better than it is?

@salty_alaskan True. It doesn't scale, at all.

46 wetenschappers van het IPCC hebben hun ontslag genomen. De reden? Omdat er niet naar hen geluisterd wordt, omdat hun meningen afwijken van het gangbare verhaal! Maar geloof me niet zomaar op mijn woord, hier zijn hun verklaringen: Dr. Robert Balling: Het IPCC merkt op dat "er geen significante versnelling van de zeespiegelstijging in de 20e eeuw is waargenomen." Dit stond niet in de IPCC-samenvatting voor beleidsmakers. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: "Stijgende concentraties koolstofdioxide in de atmosfeer veroorzaken geen wereldwijde temperatuurstijging... eerst veranderde de temperatuur en zo'n 700 jaar later volgde een verandering in de hoeveelheid koolstofdioxide in de atmosfeer." Dr. John Christy: "Wat weinig mensen weten, is dat de meeste wetenschappers die bij het IPCC betrokken zijn, het er niet over eens zijn dat er sprake is van klimaatverandering. De bevindingen van het IPCC zijn in elk opeenvolgend rapport steevast verkeerd voorgesteld en/of gepolitiseerd." Dr. Rosa Compagnucci: "De mens heeft slechts een paar tienden van een graad bijgedragen aan de opwarming van de aarde. Zonneactiviteit is een belangrijke drijvende kracht achter het klimaat." Dr. Richard Courtney: "Het empirische bewijs wijst er sterk op dat de hypothese van door de mens veroorzaakte opwarming van de aarde onjuist is." Dr. Judith Curry: "Ik ga niet zomaar mijn mening geven en het IPCC steunen, want ik heb geen vertrouwen in het proces." Dr. Robert Davis: "De wereldwijde temperaturen veranderen niet zoals de meest geavanceerde klimaatmodellen voorspelden. In de samenvatting van het IPCC voor beleidsmakers wordt geen enkele keer melding gemaakt van temperatuurmetingen via satellieten." Dr. Willem de Lange: “In 1996 noemde het IPCC mij als een van de circa 3000 ‘wetenschappers’ die het erover eens waren dat er een aantoonbare menselijke invloed op het klimaat bestaat. Dat was ik niet. Er is geen bewijs dat de hypothese ondersteunt dat een ongecontroleerde, catastrofale klimaatverandering het gevolg is van menselijke activiteiten.” Dr. Chris de Freitas: "Besluitvormers binnen de overheid zouden inmiddels moeten weten dat de basis voor de aloude bewering dat koolstofdioxide een belangrijke drijvende kracht achter het wereldwijde klimaat is, ter discussie staat; en daarmee ook de tot nu toe aangenomen noodzaak van kostbare maatregelen om de uitstoot van koolstofdioxide te beperken. Als ze het niet weten, komt dat door het lawaai van de klimaathysterie, die gebaseerd is op de drogreden van 'argumenten uit onwetendheid' en voorspellingen van computermodellen." Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld: "Er is nog veel meer vooruitgang nodig met betrekking tot ons huidige begrip van het klimaat en onze mogelijkheden om het te modelleren." Dr. Peter Dietze: "Door gebruik te maken van een gebrekkig werveldiffusiemodel heeft het IPCC de toekomstige opname van koolstofdioxide door de oceanen ernstig onderschat." Dr. John Everett: "Het is tijd voor een realiteitscheck. De oceanen en kustgebieden zijn veel warmer en kouder geweest dan wordt voorspeld in de huidige klimaatveranderingsscenario's. Ik heb het IPCC en recentere wetenschappelijke literatuur bestudeerd en ben van mening dat er geen probleem is met toenemende verzuring, zelfs niet tot de onwaarschijnlijke niveaus in de meest gebruikte IPCC-scenario's."

When people point to Mark Carney’s credentials and say he’s failing, I think they’re missing the mark. I’m usually the first to say education doesn’t equal intelligence—but in this case, that argument doesn’t hold. He’s not incompetent. He’s highly capable. Which is exactly why I don’t believe this is accidental. You don’t let a country slide this far, this fast, by mistake. This isn’t someone trying and failing. This looks like someone executing a plan. A plan that leaves people more dependent, more strained, and more willing to accept control. And here’s the kicker—while that’s happening, the 1% are quietly exiting. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a signal.

@Tablesalt13 Imported TFWs who brought families and massive use of government welfare to replace young Canadians who mostly lived at home and posed no burden on taxpayers. Because they’re converting TFWs to PR then citizens so they can vote Liberal. People should be furious.

I don’t know who needs to hear this, but a nation doesn’t need infinite growth. Canada was a much better place with half the population. We all had doctors, our schools weren’t overcrowded, housing was reasonable and plentiful, teenagers could get jobs, traffic wasn’t a nightmare, vehicle insurance was even reasonable. There is not a single thing that has improved by importing 20 million people who couldn’t even build their own country

🚨BREAKING!!! 46 IPCC Scientists REBEL: The Climate Narrative is Crumbling from Within!🚨 Forty-six scientists tied to the IPCC have stepped away or spoken out because their evidence-based views clashed with the official alarmist script. They weren’t “listened to.” Their data didn’t fit the doom-and-gloom story pushed in the Summaries for Policymakers. Don’t trust me, read their own words here! ⬇️ Dr. Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that ‘No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.’ This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.” Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.” Dr. John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.” Dr. Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.” Dr. Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.” Dr. Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.” Dr. Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.” Dr. Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 ‘scientists’ who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.” Dr. Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.” Dr. Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.” Dr. Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.” Dr. John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.” Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.” Yet the grift rolls on. New grads, indoctrinated in universities, keep repackaging the same scares for the next generation. “Consensus!” “The Science says!” Endless control through manufactured ignorance. Meanwhile, nature doesn’t care about the narrative. Natural forcings rule. The Sun is cooling. Jet stream gone meridional. Cosmic rays surging, seeding clouds. Result? Wild swings, then global cooling. The emperor has no clothes, and the scientists who know it are finally speaking up. 🔥 Original work from The Dragons Breathe Substack: open.substack.com/pub/thedragons…

WE ARE OVERTAXED CANADIANS. We get up early, we do the work, we carry our end of the deal, and somewhere along the way it stopped feeling like citizenship and started feeling like a subscription we can’t cancel. The money leaves our accounts with flawless efficiency, every deduction right on time, every tax accounted for. What comes back feels suspiciously like a concept. Services thin out, costs go up, and somehow we’re told everything is working exactly as intended under your leadership. WE ARE PRICED OUT CANADIANS. Groceries used to be routine. Now they’re a quiet negotiation with ourselves in aisle seven. What stays, what goes, what gets quietly put back like it never belonged. You start making trade offs you never used to think about, and you do it without saying much because everyone else around you is doing the same thing. Meanwhile, you roll out another billion dollar “solution” with a polished name and a straight face, as if the problem was simply that you hadn’t spent quite enough yet. WE ARE WATCHING CANADIANS. We still turn on Question Period, partly out of habit, partly out of stubborn optimism that maybe, just maybe, someone in your government will answer something directly. Real questions about debt, inflation, and affordability go in. Your ministers deliver pre-written talking points. It’s less accountability and more a stage production where everyone already knows their lines and nobody is allowed to improvise. The outcome is managed, the tone is rehearsed, and the substance quietly disappears. WE ARE TALKED DOWN TO CANADIANS. When your Minister, Steve MacKinnon, asks what inflationary spending should be cut, it isn’t curiosity. It’s a facetious, performative Question Period setup, delivered in that self satisfied tone for the cameras, not for an actual answer. He knows full well the question being asked is about waste and inflationary pressure, not core supports Canadians rely on. But under your government’s approach, he pivots anyway and starts listing dental care, child care, school lunches, as if that was ever the point. It’s not a serious exchange. It’s staged grandstanding designed to misrepresent the argument before it can even be made. The message is obvious. Ask real questions and your government will paint Canadians as unreasonable. Convenient, if the goal is to avoid answering anything at all. WE ARE PAYING CANADIANS. So let’s answer the question your government keeps pretending to ask. Cut the waste that multiplies like it’s getting a bonus. Cut the gun buyback that spends freely and achieves very little. Cut the high speed rail daydream your government is selling as legacy while people are pricing out ground beef. Trim the consultant carousel and the bureaucracy your ministers keep expanding that produces announcements instead of results. Then get to the part your government avoids. Stop duplicating funds just to re-brand them. We already have an Infrastructure Bank. We don’t need another “Canada Strong” wrapper doing the same job with a bigger press conference under your watch. Take a hard look at foreign aid your government champions that reads beautifully in a release and very differently on a ledger. Millions into gender themed programs in countries that don’t share those values, while affordability at home keeps slipping. Boxes checked abroad, bills checked at home. Audit the endless grants, pilot projects, innovation funds, advisory panels, and communications contracts your government continues to expand no matter what the economy is doing. None of this touches core services. It touches the excess your government never seems to notice until Canadians point directly at it. WE ARE SHUT OUT CANADIANS. This week, under your leadership, committees went in camera. Doors closed. Cameras off. The public removed from the room at the exact moment scrutiny matters. You added more Liberal members to each committee, tipped the balance, then your government took away the view. Efficient, controlled, and very convenient if the goal is to limit questions instead of answer them. WE ARE SIDELINED CANADIANS. Committees are supposed to be where serious work happens. Where decisions are examined, numbers are defended, and someone has to explain how the math actually works without a script. Instead, under your direction, they are being reshaped into something quieter, safer, and far more predictable, while the people funding it all are left outside, expected to trust a process your government no longer allows them to see. Trust, apparently, is something your government expects without earning. WE ARE MISLED CANADIANS. Your government tells us there are only two choices. Endless spending or cruelty. Ask for restraint and suddenly the conversation shifts to fear, to worst case scenarios, to carefully selected examples meant to shut down debate. Meanwhile, the debt grows, the interest compounds, and the cost of living keeps tightening. Compassion isn’t measured by how much your government spends. It’s measured by whether people can actually live, and right now that answer is getting harder to defend. WE ARE PAYING FOR IT TWICE CANADIANS. We fund the programs. We fund the waste around them. We fund the interest on both. Then a portion comes back dressed up as relief, and your government expects gratitude, as though it appeared out of nowhere. It isn’t help. It’s our own money taking a scenic route through Ottawa first, picking up a press release along the way. WE ARE STILL HERE CANADIANS. We still believe in this country, which is probably the most stubborn thing about us. We believe in people who show up, help each other, and carry more than their share when they have to. We believe government answers to us, not the other way around. That accountability matters. That transparency is not optional. That leadership means facing questions, not managing them or redirecting them until nobody remembers what was asked. WE ARE DONE PRETENDING CANADIANS. Answer the questions. Open the doors. Drop the script. Stop treating Canadians like an audience to be managed instead of citizens to be respected. Stop assuming we won’t notice, won’t connect the dots, won’t push back. This isn’t your money. It never was. It’s ours. Now act accordingly. Signed, The Canadians You Clearly Think Are Beneath You 👇 open.substack.com/pub/melanieins… 👇 buymeacoffee.com/melanieinsaska… Image Made With AI, Just In Case You Can't Tell🤦‍♀️

🚨🇨🇦 Future textbooks will use Canada’s post-2015 era as a masterclass in how to dismantle a developed economy. When you’re underperforming "Left-Green" Germany—a country in the middle of a massive energy crisis—you’ve hit rock bottom. Total GDP is being propped up by record population growth, but GDP per capita is in a freefall. We aren’t getting richer; the pie is just being sliced into smaller, thinner pieces. 🥧✂️ And the best part? 🙇🏻 The government blames the U.S. for our demise. 🇺🇸 It wasn’t the U.S. that killed business investment, choked the resource sector, and funneled every spare dollar into a housing bubble..that was all home-grown. #Canada #USA #Trump

WHAT part does everyone not understand? Covid was a gain of function lab created bioweapon with spike protein being a major aspect of the mechanism of harm but by no means all of it. Covid shots are also a bioweapon. It literally is synthetic Messenger RNA (ribonucleic acid) that goes into your cells and provides instructions to make you a spike protein producing factory. It does not just go away, the shots have DNA contamination, and the pseudouridine insertions lead to frameshifting and aberrant protein production with their own problems. Thank you for your attention to this matter.