Sabitlenmiş Tweet
L. Wayne Mathison
120.7K posts
L. Wayne Mathison
@WayneMathison
Entrepreneur & Ex Municipal Leader. Cross-disciplinary student of economics, psychology, and philosophy. I prefer local grit and real-world results over vibes.
Manitoba Katılım Aralık 2021
2.3K Takip Edilen6.8K Takipçiler
The Supreme Court Just Proved Pierre was Correct.
Carney and the Liberals keep pretending the security-clearance issue is simple.
“Just get briefed.”
Sounds responsible.
But the issue was never just clearance. The issue is what comes attached to the briefing.
Under the NSICOP-style framework, MPs can be bound by secrecy rules that limit what they can say afterward. That is not some conspiracy theory. The Supreme Court has now confirmed that, in narrow national-security circumstances, Parliament can impose real limits on what MPs may disclose.
So here is the problem.
The Liberals want Pierre Poilievre briefed, restricted, and then politically attacked for not speaking about things he may no longer be legally allowed to discuss.
That is not transparency.
That is a trap with better branding.
Carney and the Liberals love “accountability” when it means demanding explanations from everyone else. But when Canadians ask questions about foreign interference, classified briefings, or government failures, suddenly everything disappears behind secrecy, process, redactions, and “trust us.”
No thanks.
Canada needs national security, yes.
But national security cannot become a political gag order.
That is the line.
youtu.be/fhwxEGZAC9I?si…
YouTube
English
Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Carney Liberals, Proves Pierre and Correct.
Carney and the Liberals keep saying: “Just get the security clearance.”
Cute trick.
The issue was never clearance alone. It was the legal gag that can come with certain classified briefings.
Brief him. Restrict him. Then attack him for not speaking.
That’s not transparency.
That’s a trap.
Supreme Court Deals Major Blow To Carney, Proves Poilievre RIght youtu.be/fhwxEGZAC9I?si… via @YouTube
YouTube
English
Also, It would not be “smaller economic growth.” That is the soft version people tell themselves so the idea sounds noble.
For Canada, pulling away from the U.S. in favour of Europe would be economically brutal.
Canada is not a mid-Atlantic island choosing between two dinner invitations. We are physically, commercially, and industrially tied to North America. Our trucks, rail lines, pipelines, auto plants, farms, energy systems, ports, factories, and supply chains are built around the U.S. market.
That is not ideology. That is geography.
The U.S. is not just another customer. It is Canada’s dominant export market. Europe cannot simply replace that. The distances are longer. The logistics are harder. The markets are more regulated. The energy politics are worse. The bureaucracy is thicker. And European economies are generally slower-growing, older, and more protectionist than their “rules-based” advertising suggests.
So when someone says, “I’ll accept smaller growth for more freedom,” the obvious question is:
More freedom from whom?
Because handing more economic influence to Brussels is not freedom. It is swapping Washington’s pressure for European regulation, climate rules, procurement conditions, industrial policy demands, and bureaucratic control from people Canadians do not elect.
Canada should not be ruled by Washington.
Correct.
But Canada also should not kneel to Brussels while pretending that is sovereignty with better manners.
The realistic answer is not “choose Europe over America.” The answer is to use Canada’s North American position properly: energy, agriculture, minerals, defence, Arctic security, autos, pipelines, ports, and supply chains. That is our leverage.
Walking away from the U.S. market would not make Canada freer.
It would make Canada poorer, weaker, more dependent, and easier to push around.
English
@WayneMathison @JoCoco_ @clashreport @Monteleone3537 Everyone in the EU is treated equally.
Everyone under the US is treated as a subject and expected to concede to every demand of the US with absolutely zero concessions.
I’ll happily take a smaller economic growth with more freedom than be ruled by Washington
English
Canadian PM Mark Carney:
It’s my strong personal view that the international order will be rebuilt — but it will be rebuilt out of Europe.
English
Canada is not a “genocidal resource extraction colony.” Canada is a constitutional democracy with deep historical wrongs, modern legal obligations, Indigenous rights, courts, treaties, resource agreements, environmental reviews, elections, and endless consultation rules.
You can criticize Canada’s history without turning every oil well, mine, pipeline, and logging road into a cartoon villain.
Here’s the part they never want to say out loud: resource development also funds jobs, roads, hospitals, schools, housing, Indigenous-owned businesses, revenue-sharing agreements, and northern communities that do not survive on academic slogans.
If Canada stops developing resources, ordinary people pay the price first.
This is the usual campus routine: condemn the economy, enjoy the services it funds, and call it justice.
English
English
The relationship between Canada and Europe is rooted in a common history and shared values, and we’re building on that.
In a more divided world, we’re choosing partnership — in trade, defence, and security — to build a more prosperous and secure future together.
English
The left says, “Canada must never be ruled by Washington. We are a sovereign nation.”
I agree.
Then five minutes later they say Canada should tie itself closer to the EU, obey Brussels-style regulations, accept European trade conditions, and let unelected bureaucrats shape more of our economy.
So sovereignty is sacred when the influence comes from Washington, but optional when it comes from Brussels?
No thanks.
Canada should not be ruled by Washington, Brussels, Beijing, or Davos. Canada should act like Canada: defend our resources, control our laws, protect our workers, build our own strength, and make deals only when they serve Canadian interests.
The goal is not to trade one foreign master for another.
The goal is sovereignty. Period.
English
@WayneMathison He did not mention Canada being rebuilt out of Europe but rather the new international order. It's right there in plain site
English
Carney doesn’t talk like a Canadian prime minister. He talks like a Davos consultant with a Canadian mailing address.
Canada should not be rebuilt “out of Europe.” Canada should be rebuilt out of Canadian energy, Canadian workers, Canadian resources, Canadian defence, Canadian innovation, and Canadian common sense.
A Canadian prime minister should be saying:
“The international order will be rebuilt with Canada as a serious, sovereign, resource-rich, militarily capable, economically productive country.”
Instead, Carney sounds like he is auditioning to be Europe’s branch manager.
The scary part is not that he likes Europe. Learn from whoever has good ideas. The scary part is the instinct: Canada as passenger, not driver. Canada as compliance state, not sovereign nation. Canada as the polite resource warehouse that funds other people’s grand plans while our own people get higher taxes, weaker growth, worse housing, and lectures about sacrifice.
The job is Prime Minister of Canada - not regional manager for the global order.
English
L. Wayne Mathison retweetledi
@WayneMathison He has a British and an Irish passport... he is only 1/3 Canadian. His family lives in the USA... he works for the British Empire and the WEF, which is the same thing.
English
Yes, Trump has caused trouble on CUSMA. That is not an argument for Carney sitting back. That is the argument for him doing his job.
You do not negotiate only with easy people. You negotiate with difficult people because your economy depends on it.
Canada ships a huge share of exports to the U.S., and CUSMA has helped shield much of that trade from Trump’s wider tariff regime. So walking away or hiding behind “America is unpredictable” is not strategy. It is surrender with better vocabulary.
Carney should be pushing a hard North American package: tariff relief, autos, steel, aluminum, lumber, energy, pipelines, agriculture, critical minerals, border security, Arctic defence, and secure supply chains.
The serious deal is not “trust Trump.”
The serious deal is: protect Canada’s leverage before Mexico uses theirs better than we use ours.
English
Yes, this is the deal we could make, if the Americans were agreement-capable. At this point why even bother talking to them tho? Trump will rip up the deal tomorrow if he gets grumpy. Yes we should be talking to them, but we should not be expecting stable results on which to base investment decisions.
L. Wayne Mathison@WayneMathison
Carney should be talking about the only deal that matters: a hard North American economic and security package. That means tariffs, CUSMA, autos, steel, aluminum, energy, critical minerals, pipelines, agriculture, border security, defence procurement, Arctic security, and guaranteed supply chains. Canada has leverage, but only if we use it. We have oil, gas, potash, uranium, critical minerals, food, ports, rail, manufacturing, and strategic geography. That is not nothing. The problem is Carney keeps acting like the deal is in Europe, when Canada’s real economic spine runs through North America. So the serious deal is simple: Canada gives the U.S. reliable energy, resources, defence cooperation, and secure supply chains. In return, Canada demands tariff relief, market access, investment certainty, and respect inside CUSMA. That is what a prime minister should be doing. Not posing for globalist group photos while Mexico eats our lunch.
English
L. Wayne Mathison retweetledi
THIS is what real analysis looks like. But hey, your TV panels will keep serving you the same complacent, pre-approved consensus, and call it insight.
L. Wayne Mathison@WayneMathison
Carney should be talking about the only deal that matters: a hard North American economic and security package. That means tariffs, CUSMA, autos, steel, aluminum, energy, critical minerals, pipelines, agriculture, border security, defence procurement, Arctic security, and guaranteed supply chains. Canada has leverage, but only if we use it. We have oil, gas, potash, uranium, critical minerals, food, ports, rail, manufacturing, and strategic geography. That is not nothing. The problem is Carney keeps acting like the deal is in Europe, when Canada’s real economic spine runs through North America. So the serious deal is simple: Canada gives the U.S. reliable energy, resources, defence cooperation, and secure supply chains. In return, Canada demands tariff relief, market access, investment certainty, and respect inside CUSMA. That is what a prime minister should be doing. Not posing for globalist group photos while Mexico eats our lunch.
English
He has never said that.
You’re inventing a position, then arguing against it.
Pierre has said Canada needs to be stronger, faster, richer, and less bureaucratic. That means building energy, ports, pipelines, housing, defence capacity, critical minerals, and trade infrastructure.
Trading seriously with America does not mean being dependent on America. It means dealing with the largest market on the continent while building Canadian leverage at home.
Carney’s problem is not that he talks to other markets. It is that he talks about markets while keeping Canada slow, expensive, overregulated, and hard to build in.
English
@WayneMathison @CPC_HQ But in your world if the govt looks to other markets you get to proclaim Carney doesn't want to trade with America. You can believe what you want about PP, but he wants Canada to be dependent on America. It helps his narrative of Canada is broken.
English
Carney needs to get over his European obsession.
Canada is not a European country that wandered west and got lost. It is a North American country built by people who deliberately left Europe’s rigid class structures, slower growth, crowded systems, and limited opportunity behind.
Yes, we share history with Europe. Yes, we should trade with Europe. Yes, we should co-operate with Europe where it makes sense.
But Canada’s economy, geography, defence, energy, supply chains, and future are rooted in North America.
Europe can be a partner.
It should not be Carney’s political north star.
English
That was yesterday’s bragging point. Today’s reality is messier.
The EU is large, yes. It also has weak growth, high energy costs, heavy regulation, internal political fights, farmer revolts, defence dependency, migration pressure, and slow decision-making baked into the system.
Canada can learn from Europe where it makes sense. Standards, trade access, cooperation, sure.
But copying Brussels would be insane. Canada needs speed, energy development, resource exports, ports, defence, housing, and productivity. The EU is not a magic model. It is a warning about what happens when bureaucracy outruns growth.
English
@WayneMathison The EU is the largest and most successful trading bloc in the history of the world. Carney would be smart to pick up a few lessons there.
English
Sure, Canada and the EU have things in common. That does not make Europe our main economic reality.
Shared values are nice. Trade capacity is better.
Canada’s biggest problems are not solved by vibes about “synergies.” They are solved by ports, pipelines, LNG, critical minerals, defence capacity, faster approvals, and competitive industry.
The EU is slow, overregulated, energy-fragile, and already full of its own internal problems. Work with Europe where it makes sense. But don’t pretend Brussels replaces North America.
Canada’s future should be built on Canadian strength, not European branding.
English
@Frid45 The EU 🇪🇺 and Canada 🇨🇦 have many things in common, let's take advantage of those synergies .
🇪🇺❤️🇨🇦
English
This is meme politics for people who don’t read platforms.
Poilievre has opposed carbon pricing, opposed Liberal spending, opposed bureaucratic overreach, opposed soft-on-crime policy, opposed censorship-style speech laws, opposed the Trudeau economic model, and pushed energy, pipelines, housing reform, lower taxes, stronger defence, and faster approvals.
So no, he is not Trudeau with a haircut.
This graphic works only if you ignore what both men have actually said and done. That is not analysis. That is cope with checkmarks.
English
He's such a disingenuous fucking idiot, and I have exactly zero respect for his little band of clapping seals in the background. They know exactly the kind of man that they support in Pierre. They should have figuratively knifed him a year ago and started over. He's a liar.
Scott Robertson@sarobertsonca
Pierre Poilievre says the Billy Bishop runway expansion would have "an enormous environmental benefit" because "it will take cars off the road."
English
BS. “Focus on America” does not mean “only trade with America.”
It means deal first with the market that actually matters most to Canadian jobs, supply chains, autos, energy, agriculture, steel, aluminum, and border security.
Pierre’s point is simple: make Canada stronger at home so we can negotiate better abroad. That includes energy, ports, pipelines, critical minerals, defence, and faster approvals.
That is not dependency.
Dependency is sitting on our resources, blocking infrastructure, weakening our economy, then pretending Europe will save us because someone said “diversification” into a microphone.
English
@WayneMathison @CPC_HQ No PP has openly stated that a govt under him would only focus on trade with America. So yes, that makes Canada dependent on America. Then again, he could be changing his stance on things because he denies what he has said in the past as often as Trump & as often as his makeovers
English
Diversification sounds great. The problem is execution.
You don’t replace the U.S. market with speeches. You need ports, pipelines, LNG capacity, rail capacity, faster approvals, competitive taxes, and buyers who can take Canadian exports at scale.
The U.S. is not just “one customer.” It is our closest market, integrated supply chain, energy buyer, auto partner, defence partner, and border reality.
Yes, reduce risk. But pretending Brussels, China, or distant markets can quickly replace North America is fantasy economics. Diversification is useful only if Canada first builds the infrastructure and productivity to make it real.
English
The North American deal has to close. No argument there. But Canada's leverage at that table goes up the moment Washington stops being our only option. 75% of exports one direction isn't a spine. It's a hostage situation. Diversification isn't the alternative to a hard North American deal, it's what makes one possible.
English
Carney should be talking about the only deal that matters: a hard North American economic and security package.
That means tariffs, CUSMA, autos, steel, aluminum, energy, critical minerals, pipelines, agriculture, border security, defence procurement, Arctic security, and guaranteed supply chains.
Canada has leverage, but only if we use it. We have oil, gas, potash, uranium, critical minerals, food, ports, rail, manufacturing, and strategic geography. That is not nothing.
The problem is Carney keeps acting like the deal is in Europe, when Canada’s real economic spine runs through North America.
So the serious deal is simple: Canada gives the U.S. reliable energy, resources, defence cooperation, and secure supply chains. In return, Canada demands tariff relief, market access, investment certainty, and respect inside CUSMA.
That is what a prime minister should be doing.
Not posing for globalist group photos while Mexico eats our lunch.
English
Nope. Carney is flying around selling Carney.
Promoting Canada means removing the barriers that keep Canadian energy, minerals, agriculture, manufacturing, and exports trapped at home. It means faster approvals, ports, pipelines, lower taxes, and real trade capacity.
Speeches in Europe are not nation-building. Photo ops are not export infrastructure. Saying “Canada is reliable” means nothing if the government keeps making Canada slow, expensive, overregulated, and hard to build in.
Canada does not need a travelling portfolio manager. It needs a prime minister who can get things built.
English
@WayneMathison Clearly you aren’t listening to him… he has promoted Canada every step of the way as he has been promoting Canada as a reliable trading partner around the world…
English
Carney is not a conservative because he repeats a few conservative-sounding words.
A conservative government would cut red tape, speed up approvals, defend energy, reduce taxes, control spending, protect free speech, and stop treating the private sector like a government pet.
Carney is still running the Liberal machine, with Liberal spending, Liberal bureaucracy, Liberal climate policy, and Liberal instincts.
Calling that “decent conservative” is just brand confusion. A blue tie does not make a red policy conservative.
English
@WayneMathison @Richard_here65 @CPC_HQ Everything you stated is what Carney is doing. He's a decent conservative prim minister. No a fan personally, but no chance PP will ever get elected.
English
Dear Fool, the point was not that Billy Bishop is closer to every single destination in Ontario.
The point is that a downtown airport gives many travellers a shorter trip than Pearson, especially for downtown Toronto, the waterfront, financial district, hospitals, universities, and nearby business travel.
Of course some trips are still better through Pearson. That is why adults compare routes by destination instead of pretending one Etobicoke example disproves the whole argument.
More airport choice means fewer forced long drives across the GTA. That is the argument. Try replying to that one.
English
@WayneMathison Dear Moron, you typed 4 words!
"Pierre is correct. Shorter drive."
Shorter drive to where? What if my conference is in Etobicoke, thats not shorter. So no one is going to take an uber or taxi from Billy Bishop? Wow....LOL
Pierre is wrong on literally everything he said.
English
One single human could not be this dumb, can they?
Scott Robertson@sarobertsonca
Pierre Poilievre says the Billy Bishop runway expansion would have "an enormous environmental benefit" because "it will take cars off the road."
English
Exactly. If Carney tries to play Europe against the U.S., he risks annoying both and gaining nothing.
The U.S. will see it as posturing. Europe will see it as desperation. Canadians will be left with more speeches, weaker leverage, and no serious trade package.
A smart prime minister would stop trying to look clever and start building strength at home: energy, ports, pipelines, defence, critical minerals, manufacturing, and border security.
That gives Canada bargaining power.
Carney’s game looks like theatre. Strategy requires assets, not vibes.
English
Carney is playing division politics. OMB on one side and EU on the other. He uses it as a bargaining chip with Trump while pandering to Elbozos.
L. Wayne Mathison@WayneMathison
Carney needs to get over his European obsession. Canada is not a European country that wandered west and got lost. It is a North American country built by people who deliberately left Europe’s rigid class structures, slower growth, crowded systems, and limited opportunity behind. Yes, we share history with Europe. Yes, we should trade with Europe. Yes, we should co-operate with Europe where it makes sense. But Canada’s economy, geography, defence, energy, supply chains, and future are rooted in North America. Europe can be a partner. It should not be Carney’s political north star.
English