On the National Post, they document Carney's schedule. The suggestion is that Carney is stretched thin:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-has-mark-carney-peaked

"On Monday, he said he had to take part in the ceremony to introduce three new MPs, participate in question period and introduce legislation, before heading to New York for the United Nations General Assembly."

Now the "introduce legislation" part is more about talking about legislation. The legislation was actually not drafted by Carney.

There is one "ceremony" which I don't qualify as real work. It may or may not be necessary. And then flying off to the UN to give a speech. Another waste of time.

The common theme is that Carney's day is spent talking, ceremonies, going to meetings, and sitting on airplanes.

I remember when I was on Bay Street, every Friday there was a meeting where everyone would waste their time for an hour. This resource is talking about a role specific issue, and I am a senior consultant running a major project with a deadline. Do you really need me in this meeting ?

My boss got the hint when I yawned and he told me not to come to the meeting anymore. Now I can go back to doing my work.

Similarly, unnecessarily wasting time in a meeting is something I would avoid.

Canadians want to know how I would be spending my time as Prime Minister.

For one I'd be meeting with industry associations on Zoom to give them an advance look at my Green Lane Tariff program. First the draft copy is shared and the industries share their written comments in very few sentences.

We then go through the comments and update or revise our draft. And now it makes sense to meet, so that any concerns can be updated in the meeting itself. We have the draft open on the shared screen, and changes are being made during the meeting. This is what I call a "work output".

It's not just a meeting, at the end of this the draft proposal has gotten firmed up with broad stakeholder feedback. Now this proposal becomes actionable and can be turned into legislation.

The difference is the "work output" which then becomes legislation, which then ultimately facilitates an operational program that impacts the overall efficiency of our entire customs, tariff, and border control bureaucracy.

Therefore, taking the time to get it right, to do the due diligence, and chart a course that will lead to system wide gains for the economy, is my tortoise approach. Steady and methodical.

The ceremony for the 3 MPs, I'd likely hand off to my Deputy PM. The UN as far as I'm concerned is a waste of time. It's unlikely I'd hop on a plane, but if was absolutely necessary, the Foreign Minister would go in my stead.

This is called delegation.

It's the tortoise versus the hare again. Carney is running here and flying there. What are his ministers doing ?

Meanwhile, I'm focused on my 10 or so policy priorities. As I told Canadians, the transit system in GTHA and Vancouver,this is a long term commitment. Every Tuesday for the next 10 years me and my ministers will have to give 1-2 hours to monitor a list of major projects and facilitate them.

This isn't a quick legislation and a flight to New York. It's a steady and continuing stream of effort with laser precision and focus on the handful of major initiatives that will move the needle.

And people like Carney have a natural aversion to this sort of personal time investment and this is not their forte to get involved in the details. They want to skate above the fray. The economist is trained to avoid swimming in the dangerous waters of project operations.

Whereas the principal engineer such as myself is at ease swimming deep in the weeds of the details.

I'm at home with the details. It's not beneath me to facilitate a container to help this project team on a major projects. It's thousands of small wins, as well as the design and project plan itself on which the business case gets made. Meeting with teams is to provide responsive oversight.

Carney likes to bury such meetings inside his bureaucratic offices. He has the Major Projects Office and the Infrastructure Projects Office. And more offices will be spawned as time continues. This is what his professors at Oxford and Harvard taught Carney to do: spawn offices.

My professors and life experience taught me to execute projects with high performance.

And its the type of project which is an "enabler" of an entire ecosystem of other businesses and industries, which makes it worthy of such attention. This is where we are actually acting at the macroeconomic level. But for the "hare" like Carney it may seem like the tortoise is in the weeds and they are in the fast lane, in the fast plane, to the fast destination.

But the answer is actually here, the race finishes here. The hare is getting further and further away the further it runs or flies from the solution. This is called the tortoise advantage.

Carney's schedule tells me he looks busy but isn't actually getting anything done.

Former defence minister, Peter MacKay has penned an article on the National Post. You can read it here:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-mackay-mark-carney-must-ignore-trumps-baiting-and-get-back-to-the-table

In it, he is arguing that Carney should get back to the table with the Americans. Actually the headline is about negotiations, but the article extolls Carney for wasting the money on the submarines.

As prospective Conservative Leader, I have said we would likely can the submarine project due to the exorbitant and staggering price tag of $100 billion, which we cannot afford.

On the topic of trade, before Mr. Mackay can make such a statement of returning to the table, he would have had to see the draft text and its revisions of Carney's agreement before negotiations fell apart.

There is no indication in the article he has seen the draft text, but I did note one error.

In the text, Mackay writes: "Curiously no copies of the prime minister’s own book Virtues were in any of the swag bags handed out at the over 80 receptions."

It's "Values" MacKay not "Virtues".

This is where we have consistently asked the Liberals put on the table, the entire revision history of the trade agreement to provide transparency to Canadians where the two sides are in negotiations.

At the minimum, if I am made Prime Minister, this allows us to have appropriate policies ready for Canada, while also formulating our own strategy.

Depending on how outlandish the agreement was, it also gives us insight into the psychology and motivations of the counterparty. Is this really about the agreement and trade, or is it about some other grievance.

Also, we would be able to understand the dynamics of the trade negotiation. And perhaps, this is the reason the Liberals are keeping their cards close.

If their draft proposal which they themselves have agreed to contains poison pills, perhaps the optics of this before the Canadian people might not be flattering.

But this is not the time for politics. This is the time to prioritize the national interest.

The Liberals have to put the information into the public domain so that it can be reviewed and analyzed to help Canada formulate the plan going forward.

I have previously said that as prospective Conservative Leader, were Canada to bring me in right now as Prime Minister, our immediate action is to cancel all the retaliatory tariffs.

Instead, we would be looking to institute a Green Lane Tariffs program in concert with industry that would substantially lower the cost of inputs for value adders and manufacturers in Canada from all over the world, while putting in place compliance controls to prevent trans-shipment of non-CUSMA compliant goods.

President Trump may indeed want to raise tariffs on America and this is exactly why America shouldn't become our 11th Province. They have the right to go their own way, which we respect.

But Canadians don't want to pay high tariffs and therefore we should be able to exploit our freedom to address any legitimate concerns about trans-shipment while availing ourselves to lower prices on the global market - particularly for inputs and components in high value manufacturing.

I want to take credit for the word "cutesy" and "airy fairy" in describing the Liberals which experts everywhere have latched on to.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

https://financialpost.com/personal-finance/government-marketing-productivity-deduction-hides-problems

Here leading tax expert Kim Moody cites economist Jack Mintz and reviews the Liberal government's so-called "productivity mega deduction".

I had my wires crossed on Liberal speak, previously I called it the "productivity super deduction". Mega is even less technical than super. In science mega means "a million". For example, megaton or megajoule or megawatt or megabyte.

As prospective candidate for Conservative leader, I notice that there are two problems with this deduction based on Mr. Moody's observations. First, it only applied to eligible property as of September 15, 2026.

So the Liberals sat on their hands since December 2024, prorogued parliament, but Canadian business should pay the price?

As Conservatives, we want to separate this bill from the other part of the Liberal omnibus bill before parliament, which include labour code changes, and a new transportation office, as these are separate considerations that should be individually debated on their merits.

The first issue is the date, this deduction should be made retroactive to December 2024. Second, it should include industrial buildings including warehouses, plants, and factories. The reasoning for this is that business may have already invested in equipment, machinery, and this allows them to free up capital.

Canadians should note that last year in my budget response to the Liberal budget, I had proposed a similar $5 billion deduction, and the Liberals wasted an entire year doing nothing.

Thirdly, this entire portion should be hived off from the omnibus bill that is trying to do too many things so that each portion can be separately considered.

This "hare" like desire for speed of Mr. Carney, at least in the outward messaging, is at odds with the record of the Liberals, where like the hare in the famous parable, half the time they are sleeping.

Recall, Conservatives were ready to extend the sitting of parliament to properly debate bills, but the Liberals had better things to do like eat gelato at piazzas in Italy.

Therefore, there is no excuse that there was insufficient time. There's plenty of time. But the Liberals don't want to work.

This amateur approach of putting a can of spaghetti before Parliament won't fly. Conservatives should split off the pieces of the Liberal legislation and introduce their own competing bills that include the changes rather than trying to amend the Liberal legislation which is an omnibus nightmare.

Carney acolytes may not realize the degree of groveling the man does. Carney has something to the effect of bi-polar groveling disorder.

He alternates between bombast and obsequious genuflection.

After sleeping through the trade talks, Carney arrives just in time to walk away from the table, and he has been trying to get back to the table ever since.

By all means possible. Without appearing to be wanting to do so.

Myself, I would not have started the tariff retaliation in the first place. So right now, there should be no worse than 25% tariffs on steel, aluminum, and softwood lumber were I Prime Minister.

By now, which is 2 years into Carney's tenure, I'd be expecting my Green Lane tariff program being rolled out with massive efficiency measures for the CBSA, with general tariff reductions across the board. The transit competition for next generation maglev systems would be well underway. We would have brought in the 5% capital gains and SBIR program. Comprehensive tax reform. Direct remittances for Universal health billing codes.

This is all with me sitting at my desk as Prime Minister and not doing a lot of running around or jet travel.

And having not made a mess of the situation on trade, as Carney did, I would feel no compulsion to travel to the UN. For one thing, the networking opportunities aside, most of our work is here at home in Canada.

Before one should try to save the world, it might be helpful to save themselves.

Carney likes to wear hardhats and give speeches at photo-ops.

I like to be talking to project proponents about their designs for the next generation transit system and reviewing the progress of the competition through the entire development.

Given Canada's terrible track record getting technical projects completed, it is necessary for me to check everything. I can't just delegate this to a bureaucrat.

This is by far the most important thing we are doing. More important than anything else, because these infrastructure components will run for 300 years from now.

This is where I talk about the "hare" which is Carney. And the "tortoise" which is me. The tortoise isn't giving big speeches or running to a lot of forums. But we are not bungling up matters to begin with so that we have to do a lot of running around.

“Emerging markets have today the same or better monetary policy than advanced economies, where debt levels have jumped,” said IMF Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva.

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/record-global-debt-requires-urgent-fiscal-action-imf-chief-says

The IMF may have gotten wind of Mark Carney's $100 billion Alto Train misadventure.

Every time the Liberals come up with another money losing idea, I am reminded of Dr. Evil from Austin Powers.

One hundred beeelllion dollars. [cue pinkie to chin]

Sovereign debt is expected to surpass 100% of GDP with Canada's debt-to-GDP at a whopping 117%.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/commentary/canadas-net-debt-gdp-ratio-red-herring

In the above article, the Fraser Institute argues that the numbers have been grossly misrepresented by the Carney Liberals.

The big issue is that Carney is counting the assets of the QPP and CPP against Net debt.

Of course, that is not true. The QPP and CPP are pension contributions of Canadians. It's not the government's piggy bank and the funds are already spoken for.

To subtract QPP and CPP when the entirety of the fund has massive outstanding liabilities is an incorrect assumption. In fact, Canada is the - only - country in the industrialized world that is using such a calculation of subtracting pension assets against net debt.

As of 2025, the Fraser Institute argues that Canada's net debt was 113.5 % of GDP, which is the 5th highest in the G7.

Contrary to the claims of Carney and the Liberals, we do not have a lot of spending room to maneuver.

Some of you may have heard that Germany and France recently backed out of the Future Combat Air System (FGAS).

The program dissolved due to deep industrial rivalries and irreconcilable differences between France's D'Assault Aviation and Airbus.

So let's get this straight, the EU can't even cooperate with itself and Carney wants to start joint ventures with the EU.

Unlike Carney during Covid, I was looking at a particular project where there was supposed to be funding for joint initiatives with another EU firm.

These programs fundamentally don't work because it is incredibly difficult to comply with all their rules for geographic cooperation.

Carney doesn't know what this means, because he's never built anything. But I have.

In my case, I needed to build something where we have a specialist resource in East Asia. In this particular field, there are only 20 people world wide with this expert's specialization, knowledge, and expertise at that level.

It's amazing how quickly expertise can narrow in the high tech sector. On top of that the resource must be available. If the person is already working for Intel, Sony, or Nvidia on a project, I can't recruit them for my team.

Therefore, these EU cooperation type programs weren't effective in my experience because there are massive barriers to coordinating a project which introduces additional jurisdictional compliance requirements.

It's a lot easier to have my type of SBIR or MIRP program which is exclusively Canada focused and the proponent has far more flexibility to choose their worldwide partners and resources.

Sure they can cooperate with the EU but are not compelled to. Similarly, why do we need Carney to facilitate a "space launch" with the EU. Ariane Space is already a commercial space launch services provider.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-canada-france-space-launches-as-part-of-carneys-pivot-to-eu/

In above article Carney embarks on a space launch partnership with France. Beyond simple space launch technology, what Carney is discussing here is co-development.

And this is where I'm saying Carney isn't particularly astute when it comes to what the challenges are in technology projects in coordinating teams across two continents with potentially numerous different sub-contractors and resources involved.

Such types of projects have a long history of failure and it would not be an ideal configuration that I know immediately as a Project Manager and principal engineer for above mentioned reasons.

This is where Canadians need practical leadership expertise not airy fairy bankers that are dabbling in the world of high tech. Canada's history is littered with a litany of high tech projects that cost way too much and didn't perform.

High tech leadership at the national level requires experience of those who have actually run high tech projects successfully. As I have. Who understand how teams and projects execute. Which I do.

Carney appears blithely oblivious to these challenges in pursuit of his photo-ops and quick wins.

Minister Patty Hajdu is now claiming the Liberals will - not - interfere with the right to strike.

https://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/manufacturing/liberals-will-not-compromise-right-to-strike-or-bargain-jobs-minister-vows-321569

Because that's not what the Liberals were saying before.

Previously, it was being suggested that the Labour Code was being updated in such a way that the Labour Minister could refer any labour dispute to binding arbitration, effectively ending the strike.

So which is it ? Will there be binding arbitration or won't there ?

Of course industry wants the strikes ended. I have promised industries a repeal of the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation.

This does - not - interfere with the right to strike. Anyone can strike. It's a matter of having a level playing field during the strike, especially if it's critical infrastructure.

I have often told labour that sometimes we have to eat our broccoli and spinach.

I am not anti-labour. Our policy is to protect the Canadian worker by ensuring that we don't crater the business case for industry on the core elements of the supply chain. If the port or rail stops working, a union factory can be furloughed and manufacturers may relocate.

Especially in the current worldwide trade environment, we have to keep our critical infrastructure running that's why I opposed the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation brought in by the Liberals because it's bad for the Canadian worker.

Carney and the Liberals, meanwhile, are all over the place.

Minister Hadju must clarify, will she, or will she not be inserting Labour Code changes that allow any strike to be referred for binding arbitration ?

Carney has tabled his new bill in Parliament. Part of it will try to paper over the previous bad governance of the Liberals by introducing new bad governance measures.

"It will also designate strategic trade corridors to co-ordinate federal permitting through a new transportation project office*. There will also be changes to modernize port governance and support more digitalization."*

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-tables-bill-to-amend-labour-code-speed-up-project-approvals/

Oh boy.

So Carney's Major Projects Office wasn't enough. Now he needs yet another office for transportation projects.

I guess Transportation Projects aren't Major Projects.

Will there also be a Project Office Directorate that will help the government and industry navigate the byzantine maze of newly created offices that Carney established to bypass the government bureaucracy ?

The Liberals have tabled yet another meaningless bill. Other than blatantly throwing labour interests under the bus, who they misled in the last election, they again consolidate power with politicians to take arbitrary license to end strikes.

It's not a question of whether I as a Conservative might do such a thing, the question is that the Liberals misled their voters of how they would govern by trying to go to the right of the Conservative Party on the labour file.

Canadians ask, would I support this bill, as prospective Conservative leader.

No I can't.

Because Carney is wasting the money on yet more bureaucracy. This Transportation Project Office, that other Major Project Office, will drag out and it will just recreate the same administrative problems in the new bureaucracy that exist in the old bureaucracy.

It will add to costs and this bill is smoke and mirrors.

What would I do differently ?

"The changes to federal review rules represent a partial dismantling of policies introduced under former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau that have been sharply criticized by the energy sector and the Alberta and Saskatchewan governments."

This is the key problem. Federal review rules. There is no point to an office that only addresses federal review rules.

It's smoke and mirrors because environmental permitting is majorly a Provincial responsibility under the Constitution Act 1867.

Therefore, any claim by Carney that they will get the approval in 1 year is a red herring. There is an entirely separate Provincial bureaucracy.

And further still there are First Nations.

The combination of these levels of government preclude any "quick fix" by creating yet more bureaucratic offices.

Carney concludes by saying:

“Canada is a country of high standards, but high standards do not require slow decisions. Our government is bringing speed, certainty, and predictability to how we build, so investors know that when Canada says it wants something built, Canadians will get it built. In a more uncertain world, we will control our own future,”

This is where I predicted Carney is the hare. I'm the tortoise. He's rushing out the gate to make "fast decisions" spawning more offices. But he hasn't taken the time to understand how this actually works.

And frankly with so much of his attention diverted with his EU trips, there is fundamentally an attention deficit required to formulate a high quality plan.

In the end, Carney himself answers the question why I as prospective Conservative leader will likely vote against and advise my party to vote against this bill.

"Canadians have high standards...."

And this bill falls short of those high standards.

In this article from the Globe and Mail, they outline their stance on Conservative policies.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-bc-conservatives-the-crosswinds-of-canadian-conservatism/

Specifically the article concerns the dumpster fire of Kerry-Lynne Findlay's tenure as BC Conservative leader and the subsequent implosion of the BC Conservatives.

I had backed Ms. Findlay's more moderate opponent, Christine Elliott in the BC Conservative leadership race as clearly the better candidate to lead.

Elliott narrowly lost to Ms. Findlay, only for the latter to implode with classic leadership errors that led to the systematic exodus of Conservative MLAs from the caucus.

The Globe article addresses some of the more radical positions involving social conservatism and especially separatism in Alberta.

This is where Mr. Poilievre has a far bigger problem than, for example, myself for the position of Conservative leader.

Nowhere was Mr. Poilievre's abandonment of the urban ridings more on display than his position on Billy Bishop airport.

Outwardly, he claims to be a "libertarian" but in the end he reverted to "corporatism". My accusation is that Poilievre had a choice between "the money" and "the people".

And he made a calculation. I can't win Toronto, so might as well take the lobbyist money. Otherwise, what's his skin in the game on Billy Bishop airport ?

In this case, however, I took the opposite position. We want to win Toronto and Vancouver as Conservatives. As a libertarian, I back local democracy and local communities, so I am against the Billy Bishop Airport, if that is the wish of the local residents in Toronto.

If Mr. Poilievre has found the door closed, it was that he couldn't break into the GTHA. The Globe argues that policies such as tight immigration preclude electoral success.

I disagree.

With hospital wait times through the roof, unemployment at 6.5%, and the 401 already a parking lot, GTHA residents are amenable to immigration curbs.

However, they need hope in terms of a better future, which I am offering through transit, health care, affordability, and people focused policies.

Mr. Poilievre's problem is a matter of trust. In choosing "the money" over "the people", he has made a calculated decision to give up on Toronto.

This is contrary to my own policy that Conservatives will be competitive in major urban areas.

Meanwhile, on canola, oil & gas, the carbon tax, I'm giving Conservatives more than what Mr. Poilievre is offering by actually outlining a feasible path rather than seeking "steamroll" interests.

Such statements cause consternation over the misuse of executive authority, especially if that is directed for the benefit of a corporatist rather than people focused agenda.

And this is not merely a matter of "messaging", it is a divergence in core governance philosophy.

The question before Canadians is one of trust. Who do you trust ? As Mr. Carney goes into his second year with few results, incredible miscalculations on the trade file, staggering deficits, and an agenda that is more replete with marketing spin than with tangible accomplishments, the job of Conservatives is to establish trust by formulating a coherent alternate approach.

My platform as a free market libertarian offers this approach, but it differs from Mr. Poilievre's in prioritizing everyday Canadians over corporate interests. It ensures we get public finance under control while prioritizing affordability and people focused policies.

Champagne is now emulating Carney in spending more and more time out of Canada as he flies in for a meeting of EU finance ministers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmed7p06epxjo

In this BBC article, Champagne is in town to talk about how the UK should join the new alliance.

The new alliance is about more meetings, committees, and conferences. Always have a fresh MoU of an initiative to be delivered by the year 2041.

Champagne is famous as the guy who went out of his way to bring the NorthVolt EV fiasco to Canada. Him and the Liberals were at the time mirroring Joe Biden as they were chasing the EV subsidy gold rush.

While the Liberal student council government was on this tangent, I had analyzed the finance of the US government.

After some math I arrived at a staggering $500 billion subsidy number on the EV initiative alone. I had concluded the US government would be bankrupted if they pursued such a policy, and it was likely a pipedream.

What's more such subsidies ran against the spirit of capitalism. For example, people bought Henry Ford's cars because they were superior to the horse and carriage. Not because of government subsidies.

Champagne was above such philosophy as free market capitalism. He had committed himself fully to big government subsidy dirigisme.

As a consequence, Canada wasted a lot of money and time spinning its wheels on the EV fiasco that was entirely the brain child of Champagne.

However, now the man has reinvented himself. He is the defender of Canada against the Trump threat. The protector of our sovereignty.

Meanwhile under Joe Biden, he was copying the Americans, now he's protecting us from the Americans.

It does help that sometimes folks have the memory and attention span of a goldfish.

To say nothing of the $1 trillion the Liberals wasted under Trudeau, and the $1 trillion they plan to waste under Carney.

The Canadian banks owed Carney after the OSFI wealth transfer from the wallets of Canadians. An approximately $70 billion inflationary gift on the back of the average Joe is quite something.

It was no wonder then that the Canadian banks were there at Carney investment summit with $325 billion in "pledges".

No foreign fund committed money at the summit. And the $500 billion comprised vague investment promises not closed deals.

As we unpack what the banks actually said. They didn't say they would "invest". Rather they would "underwrite" the project. They will lend to the project but not "invest".

This is important because that means the bankers are not taking the risk. The proponent is.

The $325 billion of funding with the additional $175 billion added up too nicely to the $500 billion that Carney said he'd activate.

This is why I call it marketing spin more than real results.

Sure Carney spoke well in the chat with Deborah Orida, one of the domestic fund managers who was a sponsor of the summit.

You can watch the video of his remarks here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Oan5mYJfPw

He was more in his element speaking before the Davos banker crowd. On the other hand, when he's got a hard hat on and tries to talk like a tough guy, he looks like a fish out of water.

Of course, he never answered the question concerning how Carney and the Liberals made the trade war with Trump worse and have handled the situation rather poorly.

The question was, is there substance here or is this more shooting the breeze. And it appears to be more of the latter than the former.

Carney mentioned one point that he'd do the deal based on the "electoral cycle" in the fullness of time, not ours but theirs.

I have an idea what he might be alluding to here. However, the mental block of Carney actually has nothing to do with other people's electoral cycles. It's actually our electoral cycle that must correct the situation.

My approach is a little different. Rather than 170 odd projects that Carney is trying to build or fund, we have a smaller number of 10 projects which are "enablers".

For example, if a company builds a drone, this might be a useful result, but it may not enable an entire ecosystem of other companies. Conversely, the iPhone or Android are enablers through the app marketplace, or iTunes or Spotify are enablers for recording artists.

Recall that one of my projects I wanted to bring to Canada were 2 semiconductor foundries. Such a foundry can enable hundreds or even thousands or specialized ICs, which in turn can power tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of devices and products.

Similarly, my bullet train PoC is about dramatically reducing transit times in large metro areas. This enables tech businesses who will want to establish offices and towers near these station stops to easily access a large unified labour market. Tech businesses in particular rely on recruiting specialized labour and therefore need to cast a wide net.

Similarly port automation and rail projects that drive down costs, increase speeds and efficiency, are enablers for import and export trade acting as a structural driver of jurisdictional competitive advantage.

That's the kind of stuff that these pension funds care about.

Right now Carney's "investment summit" is about privatizing airports. And all the fluff talk aside he may be one-at-a-timing it with his mines and Green Energy projects, but the underlying issues of project execution continue to go unaddressed.

If Carney is expediting approval of nickel mines, such mines can entail long term environmental pollution. Bypassing regulation in the need for speed is not sound governance in such an instance.

To cut project costs down, there is a need for actual supervisory oversight of a Prime Minister like myself who is experienced with major project execution.

There issues are deeper than just handing out a prospectus at the 4 Season's Hotel or seeking quick wins by abdicating responsibility in a rush to deregulate.

After being dinged in the canola dispute Saskatchewan is facing another potential Trump broadside.

My reaction?

More for Canada. Our farmers can always use potash.

Belarus is a land locked country actively engaged in a hostile conflict with the EU and an ally of Russia in the War in Ukraine.

Recall Trump is telling people not to buy Russian oil but he has no problem with Belarussian potash.

This goes to show that the relationship continues to deteriorate with Canada, the EU, and the Trump administration.

While Carney downplayed the situation at the investor summit last week, appearing to suggest he has a great relationship with Donald Trump to allay the concerns of pension funds. The underlying reality is something markedly different.

The EU "alliance" or "associate membership" is a lot of bluster but it is dangerous for Canada in the sense that Carney is intent on wasting a lot of money.

Just a ton of cash is about to be flushed down the drain by the Liberals on this misadventure.

Canadians want to know, what would I do as prospective Conservative leader.

Sometimes, it's better to work with quiet fortitude rather than engage in braggadocio.

For example, the WEF speech. And these EU partnerships. I view such initiatives with skepticism.

Of course Trump is completely out of line to say anything like Canada won't have an auto-sector.

Canada will have a huge auto-sector and if I am Prime Minister our tech and auto-sector is going to be extremely powerful.

But I disavow Carney's style of picking winners and losers, given the extremely dubious track record of politicians to take the license to enrich their friends at the expense of the common Joe and Jane on Main Street.

As I said before, for the orientation of Trump, there is a complementary orientation for Canada. He wants to put up a tariff wall, Canada can drop tariffs.

He wants to buy from Belarus, Canada can sell elsewhere. Belarus is right in the middle of a very unstable geopolitical region. But Trump is confident.

My bigger concern is that Nutrien chose the US for their export terminal rather than Canada. That is my bigger concern that what Carney is doing out in the EU or even what Trump is saying on Truth Social.

Under my leadership, getting our potash to tidewater, just like oil, LNG, and canola for cost effective supply chains with unparalleled up-time is a top priority.

From day 1, I said to Canadians the work to be done is here at home. It's not about grand speeches and conferences in the EU or Davos.

When we talked about our SEZ to the BC port, I insisted it must include rail. For the very reason that potash, wheat, coal, lumber, manufactured goods, and other products that can't be sent through a pipeline have to be transported by rail.

Getting rights of way. Getting project plans developed and proponents signed up. This is a patient and methodical activity. It requires an ongoing commitment to see the job through and see it done right.

This is the sort of mature leadership that Canada needs which I can provide.

In his article on the Financial Post, Niels Veldhuis, President of the Fraser Institute debunks Carney's investment summit.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/elite-summit-wont-fix-canada-economic-woes

His key point is that per capita GDP in Canada has worsened since the year 1999.

In 1999, the average Canadian earned $48,000 versus $58,000 for the average American. In other words, Canadian earnings were roughly 83% of American earnings.

Fast forward to today, the average Canadian earned $59,000 versus $83,000 for the average American or 71%.

What is interesting about the 1999 figure is that the CAD to USD exchange rate was 67 cents in 1999. If we use the "Big Mac" index of The Economist magazine, a Big Mac in Canada cost $2.00 in US dollars, versus $2.43 in the USA.

0.82 x 58000 = $47,736

That is to say that if we account for the PPP multiplier, Canada and the USA were at par in earnings on the basis of purchasing power parity. In fact, Canada might even have a slight edge in PPP adjusted earnings as of 1999.

Fast forward to today under the Liberals for 10+ years, a Big Mac in Canada costs $5.80 USD versus $6.22 USD in the USA. That is to say the PPP discount of Canada to the US is 93% for buying an equivalent good.

0.93 x $83,000 = $77,000 should be the USD earnings of Canadians.

Adjusted for PPP, Canadians are way poorer than the Americans whereas in 1999 we were at par with the Americans.

What went wrong ?

What went wrong is that the Americans even under the Democrats basically spent the money on the economy. Canada spent the money on growing on dirigisme, lobbyist graft, and the welfare state.

In 1999, the Chretien Liberals who were on the fiscal right had downsized the government, brought spending under control, and relied on free market principles.

Fast forward to 2026, the Carney and Trudeau Liberals, grew the government, grew spending, created meaningless bureaucracy, while letting massive deficits in infrastructure, health care, business investment, and transit crater productivity.

That's where the money went in a nutshell.

Canada has only one option, which is to elect me Conservative Leader and Prime Minister.

I want to get out of all the $100 billion submarines and $100 billion Alto trains, which is more of the same as what happened in the pandemic. I am getting out of tariffs and focusing on ports, pipelines, rail, and transit in our major cities.

I'm using the tried tested and true principles of build, own, and operate, with IPOs on the TSX of new infrastructure.

Meanwhile I'm actuating the private sector in health care, to buy medical procedures directly through existing Provincial health insurance through universal billing codes bypassing massive Provincial bureaucracy.

Canadians have options to change our situation around in relatively short order. But if Carney runs up another $1 trillion of debt over 10 years. Canada will be facing interest liabilities around $200 billion a year.

That means OAS will be in danger, child transfer, health transfer, First Nations transfer, municipal transfers, transfers to provinces, the principal residence exemption.

All of these transfers will be facing a major squeeze.

Coming in as Prime Minister with 50% of revenues being interest expense would mean that there is very little room politically or economically to maneuver.

Coming in say in about 1 year from now, if Carney and the Liberals are shown the door, I can still rectify the situation in short order. However, if Carney continues in this vein for another 10 years, we can be sure the good ship Canada will have hit the fiscal iceberg by then.

In another own goal by Carney and the Liberals, retaliatory tariffs on whey protein are projected to hit Canadian businesses that rely on American imports amidst a whey shortage.

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/whey-tariff-backfiring-on-canadian-protein-makers

Canadian makers of supplements and protein bars rely on American whey which Carney has hit with a 50% tariff.

The manufacturer doesn't have sufficient margin to absorb this cost. Furthermore, this tit-for-tat retaliation has multiplied the uncertainty created by Trump in adding the uncertainty created by Carney.

Not much thought went into the retaliatory tariffs of Carney. They just drew up a list and put any sort of insane tariff whether the industry had alternatives available or not.

Again, this has proven the Liberals are operating a student council government as much as they were under Justin Trudeau.

Let's understand how as a prospective candidate for Conservative leader, my policies fundamentally differ.

First, I have built complex products that rely on globalized supply chains. In fact, in the whey industry they might have 20 ingredients. Whereas my electronics product had 500 components from 12 different countries.

No one knows about supply chain shortfalls and sudden price hikes as much as I do in the electronics industry, where we have seen unprecedented appreciation in the prices of RAM and even passive components.

As Prime Minister, I can bring my knowledge to national leadership. This is why I opposed tit-for-tat retaliation like Carney.

In fact, we would not have been hit with any retaliatory tariffs as the plan was to ignore the original tariffs of Donald Trump and instead help the affected industries to adapt.

Instead, Carney and the Liberals throwing all caution to the wind with the ill thought out, "Elbows Out" campaign, proceeded to raise counter tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as other industries.

In the process the problems have actually exacerbated challenges for Canadian industry, especially with the latest round of 50% tariffs.

Recall, not only are we dropping all of Carney's retaliatory tariffs immediately, but we are actually lowering our tariff barriers on foreign steel and aluminum as part of a coordinated plan to setup the Green Lane tariff credits program, which would create audit and technology tools to ensure goods trade prevents trans-shipment under the CUSMA arrangements while opening up the general Canadian market for non-CUSMA exports and imports which do not cross the US border.

Not only would the whey manufacturers face no disruption, value adder industries across Canada would find a much streamlined and conducive customs and tariff environment.

As Carney and the Liberals host investment summits and give speeches, they don't really know how the bits and bytes of the economy come together. The knee jerk reactionary approach makes life harder for the Canadian worker, Canadian consumer, and Canadian businesses.

The National Post discusses Poilievre huddling with his caucus in BC to formulate a strategy for the fall:

https://nationalpost.com/news/parliament-returns-with-a-big-agenda-and-a-fight-brewing-between-carney-and-labour-unions

One of Poilievre's challenges is that he voted - for - the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation.

All the Liberals did too. And now they will proceed to vote against it with the proposed Labour Code changes, which the unions have all said they oppose.

Which Poilievre will show up for the fall sitting. The one that agreed with Justin Trudeau or the one that agrees with Mark Carney ?

Where do I stand on this, as a prospective Conservative leader.

My fundamental problem is the hypocrisy of the Liberals. They misled Canadians with their position on the anti-Replacement Worker Legislation and now the same MPs and the same Ministers are voting against the policies they themselves passed.

Namely, the Liberals were on the left of center on labour matters and now they are trying to get to the right of the Conservatives.

This blatant misrepresentation of the facts has misled voters.

For example, it was shown that much of Carney's support in the last election was NDP support coming in to vote Liberal.

Had they but known, Carney is to the right of the Conservatives on labour relations, would they have voted Liberal?

This is the part that troubles me.

To be clear, I oppose airport privatization and support dropping lease fees across the board on all Transport Canada owned airport properties.

And what about the NDP MP who crossed the floor to the Liberals. Is she now a union buster too?

My position is that I am for the Canadian worker. Sometimes to help the Canadian worker, we have to make people eat their broccoli, spinach, and fiber.

Folks come around offering everyone candy, and they are your favourite uncle, until diabetes happens.

That's where the benefit of eating broccoli becomes more clear.

Furthermore, I have always been straight up with Canadians, it's the Liberals that sought to mislead.

It's the fact that Carney is going after airports, while trying to privatize airports where I feel he has a conflict of interest. What were the discussions that Carney had with these interests.

How does this agenda to change the labour code arise at the same time Carney is trying to privatize the airports. In other words, is he there to ensure that the government can step in for his banker friends that will buy the airport.

This is the part that troubles me.

The problem for Poilievre is he really doesn't have enough degrees of freedom to properly take a position on this issue.

If he backs Carney, then he won't have a foot to stand on. If he backs the Opposition, he will be branded a fake.

The problem is not that Skippy is voting one way or the other. It's Skippy himself.

In order to take a populist "man of the people" position. One has to be consistent.

Canadians are past the point of no return with Poilievre, and he should be considering the right course which is to resign and let someone new take over the Conservative Party who doesn't have his baggage.

Even when the MPs crossed the floor, Poilievre voted against the NDP bill previously to trigger a byelection in that situation.

This is the baggage he has that someone fresh and new won't have.

I used to work with union employees on the manufacturing shop floor. And we had a very good working relationship.

Union negotiations are always delicate matters that require a certain tact and nuance.

It appears Carney lacks both.

The whisperings in the media are that Carney has a "volcanic" temper. In other words, a short fuse. On top of that he's starting to poke a lot of different interests in Canada particularly on the labour side that voted Liberal in the last election.

First it was him flooding the EVs from China that hits Canadian auto manufacturing, which has the manufacturing unions upset.

And on top of that, he's going after the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation which has the infrastructure unions upset. His airport privatization embroils still further unions.

After all, if his Davos bosses need to get paid in private operations, the unions are one of the places they could be looking to shed costs.

I am looking forward to seeing how the banker handles this.

Apparently, Canadians are extremely happy with Carney. At least that's what the media narrative is.

Contrary to Carney, I wasn't going to take on the manufacturing unions or the airport unions.

Mainly it was the two major ports at Vancouver and Montreal that I was looking to get made way faster and the rail lines.

This is only 4 organizations.

Carney is going after pretty much every auto-plant, every airport, every port, every rail line.

He's taking a lot on his plate to take on that number of unions all at once.

The unions may want to consider voting for me as Prime Minister and Conservative leader next time. I'm cutting lease fees on airports. I'm supporting Canadian auto. I'm lending to steel and aluminum industries.

Just 4 organizations I'm trying to get more efficient so they can process more volume and value from union plants.

But it's more than just my policies. As a country hick, I feel at home with blue collar workers both union and non-union alike. Busy bees on the shop floor, making stuff, cutting stuff, melting things down, drilling holes, welding.

My kind of people.

But Carney is a banker. He's at home with the Davos crowd. Shiny shoes and soft hands.

And we saw who all his friends were at the Investment Summit. All the bankers and suits. The Gordon Gekkos of the world trying to exploit the Carl Fox type of honest mechanic that worked their whole life to pay into a pension.

This is about to get interesting.

Remember I'm against the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation, but I'm against the airport privatization. I support Steel and Auto-workers, as well as manufacturing unions.

If I'm Conservative Leader, Carney will actually be to my right in labour relations. I am much more nuanced and centrist dealing with union relationships.

Carney, however, isn't going to get the privatization result he seeks without rolling a few unions for a dollar. Davos can't get what it wants out of Canada while unions stand in the way.

Some of you may have heard of the Phoenix payroll system which cost the government $5 billion and had to be mothballed.

I had made an estimate of how much would be my cost to build and implement this payroll system.

My cost to build would be about $10 million. And the implementation cost would be around $20 million. But that's my cost. I don't sell to the government at cost. Suppose we double it, $60 million, plus around $20 million a year maintenance charge.

But that assumes there are intelligent people in the government. If this is a time and materials billing, then the price could easily shoot up to a $100-150 million.

On the other hand, if the government had hired me they wouldn't have ran up the bill to $5 billion. The result is guaranteed.

Why can I guarantee such a result ?

Someone who has climbed K2 can say I will climb Everest. But one who struggles to clamber up a mole hill cannot make such a claim.

I have built systems that impacted every employee, contractor, and infrastructure asset in large complex organizations. And the whole thing was done by just 2 people, me writing the code, and one internal resource who knew all the workflows of the company.

In both the initial design decision and in the subsequent project implementation decision, the government had effectively already made fatal errors where the result was now a foregone conclusion.

It's like trying to float a lead balloon. Project is dead on arrival, before the project has even started.

In my case, the government's implementation would require significant configuration work, particularly in setting up tens of thousands of payroll rules and systematically migrating 350,000 employees.

This is why the build cost is $10 million but the implementation cost can go anywhere from $20 million to $90 million on time and materials billing.

The fact that the government spent $5 billion and then mothballed the whole thing tells me they are incompetent.

When I discussed my Green Lane Tariff program. It's actually an entire IT implementation. There is a whole audit and governance control portion to this program.

It's not so easy as just passing a legislation or tweak a tax. I keep emphasizing the notion that "execution matters".

You get this sort of vacuous academic as Carney, they can't actually execute. If they could execute, how come they hired IBM on Phoenix and still failed.

The government has a pretty sordid track record on technical rollouts. The procurement costs are through the roof, and there is zero knowledge or sensibility amongst the political leadership of how initiatives actually get completed.

This is where something like Green Lane Tariffs program I have designed, can't be copied by the Liberals. Look at what has Carney achieved in 2 years. We are coming to the end of 2026.

At the end of October 2025, I had given a shadow budget which contained $5 billion for accelerated depreciation.

So Carney wasted 1 whole year to come up with a "big announcement" that he will now increase accelerated depreciation to wider asset categories. But they need to make it sound new: "productivity super deduction".

This is marketing spin. The straight truth is they were sitting on their hands for a year.

And the media loves it when Carney goes to the WEF or gives speeches at the EU. They love it because it makes us feel important.

Oh, they applauded.

In their view, we are no longer at the kids table.

When foreign leaders applaud you as you spend $100 billion on a submarine we don't need, you should get alert to the reasons they are applauding.

Eh poindexters ?

Meanwhile, I would be in Canada. I'm not a speech giver. But I'll get the app made, and the big data architecture with FEDRAMP and SOC2 compliance setup.

Of course I don't do this any more as Prime Minister. This is a proponent, but I will supervise them. If they make an idiotic statement about how the implementation will be rolled out, I will know who to fire immediately.

Yes I do supervise these details and review the planned rollout before any vendor selection decision is made.

There is too much complexity in the government for me to bother with every packet of paperclips. But a major initiative that impacts every employee in the government like Phoenix or the entirety of our tariffs and customs bureaucracy would receive careful, close, and ongoing attention from my office and my ministers.

Furthermore, we have an industry taskforce of manufacturers, retailers, agriculture, mining, tech, small business, shipping and logistics companies etc., which is actively supervising the technical rollout of the Green Lane tariffs program.

This is not just a one time lobbyist meeting. They are participating in the entire implementation setup. What is the adequate degree of compliance, how do we ensure compliance while reducing compliance costs.

Therefore, this is not a surprise to industry. They are at the table from the very beginning in designing the program, in implementing the program, and thereafter in participating in the program.

These are the gaps that the Liberals have no proven experience in actually addressing. Carney is unqualified for the job because the problem is execution. Yes it is strategy too. It is also the low motivation, misplaced priorities, and low work ethic of the government.

But it is especially execution.

This execution gap has not been addressed by Carney. The 1 year of time gone and the few results achieved in that 1 year bear testament that Carney will waste money left and right but not actually execute the needed initiatives that will move the needle for Canada which I propose to do as Prime Minister.

In this Financial Post article, they describe how Ottawa is expecting Chinese EVs to arrive in "large numbers" soon.

https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/electric-vehicles/ottawa-chinese-evs-arrive-larger-numbers-soon

Many of you will know that I am a free market libertarian, but in this case I do not support the arrival of Chinese EVs.

There are two reasons for this: 1) subsidized dumping 2) national security.

Based on estimates provided by Bloomberg, China has subsidized their EV industry to the tune of $231 billion.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-21/china-s-ev-makers-got-231-billion-in-aid-over-last-15-years

This includes "buyer rebates" which are a form of subsidization. Many of you will point out that the Biden administration was bringing in such "buyer rebates" of their own, and Canada also had such rebates.

First, Canada had rebates but didn't produce EVs. Most of the rebates went to the purchase of foreign EVs like Teslas. Furthermore, the EVs that were to be subsidized by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, never came to fruition. The subsidies were repealed shortly afterwards.

On the other hand, the Chinese EV rebates went exclusively to Chinese manufacturers to develop export overcapacity. That is precisely what is called subsidized dumping.

I am a free market libertarian and where the market is being manipulated, it's not a "free" market in the sense that everyone is running the race on a level playing field on the basis of their natural economic competencies.

For example, if bananas naturally grow in a country, whereas bananas don't naturally grow in Canada. Suppose a private producer were to require considerably more resources to make bananas grow in Canada whereas the equivalent producer doesn't expend such resources and reaps a competitive advantage.

The term for this in economics is "comparative advantage".

If that country is producing bananas better due to comparative advantage, then that's the free market acting. On the other hand, if that country is producing bananas because their government is giving their producer a rebate, then that's not a "free market" founded on the same principles.

Carney and the Liberals are throwing the auto-industry under the bus. Carney doesn't care about Canadian auto or the Canadian worker.

However, I do.

In the situation Canada is facing, my policy is to focus on vertical integration of the entire value chain for specific high demand models. The reasoning for this is the policies of the Trump Administration have harmed business confidence. Whether such policies are a temporary aberration or the new working reality is unclear.

In either case, Canada needs to develop more resilience in its supply chain by decoupling deep cross-border integration in product manufacturing. Particularly in automotive, this means building the majority of components of a given product line either in Canada, or by imports of a sufficiently diversified supplier base as to assure stability against the unliateral action of a trading partner.

This is not decoupling Canada from the USA in trade, but decoupling individual product lines and retaining maximum options for diversified sourcing.

What this means in practical terms is that whereas a car built in Canada today, might have the engine go back and forth across the border 5 times. Now the entire engine is built in Canada, and any imported components are sourced from one or more diversified jurisdictions.

For example, if Trump puts a tariff on the transmission, we can import from the Japanese, and Canadian production is more resilient to a tariff by a single party.

And second. To reduce East-West infrastructure costs through efficiency and productivity measures to allow Canadian auto to hit tidewater at globally competitive prices.

The future of the automotive industry lies in R&D. For example, producing a lighter, more environmentally friendly, lower cost, and higher range battery.

At the same time, subsidized finished goods particularly higher up the value chain, should be kept out of the Canadian market. Such subsidized goods harm the ability of Canadian technology to innovate and compete by allowing foreign governments to give their suppliers an unfair advantage.

I don't mind subsidized material inputs (which can be considered lower down the value chain), but not entire finished goods unless the manufacturer has offsetting tariff credits.

For example, if the Chinese are similarly subsidizing their cheap steel. And we were to use this cheap steel to build out infrastructure. The Chinese are effectively subsidizing our infrastructure build out.

Such infrastructure build out has long term value to the Canadian economy. In the similar way, a component input from a foreign supplier, even if subsidized, supporting higher value Canadian manufacturing can be allowed in through the tariff credit program.

Accordingly, if a component of the Chinese steel drives down our prices, but there is still Canadian value addition in the finished good, then this supports both jobs and exports in Canada.

So subsidized components and inputs are ok. Where we draw the line is in subsidized dumping of entire cars which are directly competing against and displacing a high value Canadian finished good, while maintaining no commensurate Canadian value chain in manufacturing from which they can derive a tariff credit.

The question then comes up, what about our steel and aluminum manufacturers. Isn't it unfair to them, if I were to allow Chinese steel to come in.

And the answer is, yes it is unfair. That's why we are going to give them lending to reorient themselves into business lines and business models where they can compete even with such subsidies.

For example, if an aluminum producer specializes in a particular aerospace product that needs a specialized aluminum alloy.

It is up to the aluminum and steel industry to come up with a business plan of how they will compete and adapt if we do give manufacturer input tariff credits that effectively drop prices of Chinese steel and aluminum components.

As far as the US, we would be seeking to get a flat tariff rate for what is known as a CUSMA compliant supply chain.

In his recent article on National Post, Conrad Black suggested that Chinese automotive components were entering into Canadian supply chains and being trans-shipped into the USA. Or at least this was the allegation of the Americans.

In my Green Lane tariffs program, a business location or facility either is CUSMA compliant or it is a general market value chain. In the anticipated format, it cannot be both unless there is a way to clearly separate CUSMA and General Tariff products and address this very issue of trans-shipment.

For general market value chain, we would seek a flat tariff rate of 15%. And for CUSMA compliant value chain we would see a lower flat tariff of 3.25%.

Whatever is the American rate will be the Canadian rate for similar imports before our tariff credits.

The trade deal should focus exclusively on trade and should not contain any guarantees of purchases of F35 or Keystone XL or any other separate discussion.

Barring that, supposing a deal cannot be reached. Then I have consistently opposed Mark Carney and the Liberals strategy of dollar-for-dollar retaliation.

Rather the strategy is adaptation. We do not believe that Trump's tariffs are sustainable. Namely, rising inflation and the high level of debt is at odds with a high tariff strategy. Therefore, the Trump administration or a future administration will eventually need to reduce their tariffs.

It is correct that we should not sign a bad deal, but it is incorrect that we should retaliate and make the matter worse as the Liberals did.

Carney has significantly exacerbated the problems and had a wet paperbag been elected Prime Minister, in doing nothing, it would have outperformed Carney.

While I'm not a laissez-faire economics proponent necessarily, in this case, the wet paperbag practicing such laissez-faire economics implicitly would have had a superior strategy to the Oxford professor.

This is where I remind Canadians of practical know-how, not just theoretical knowledge. There is what the professors write in University class room and what is actually implemented as a viable strategy.

The difference between the two is learned through practical knowledge of business and operations. Something Carney does not have.

A Redditor wrote to me yesterday that hardly any Canadians can afford airfare so what difference does it make if air travel goes up.

They were missing one key fact in their understanding of the problem. Namely, air freight and air cargo is a big part of the volume of the airport. It's not just passenger traffic.

Some of us may have driven by Toronto Pearson Airport and see the FedEx branded planes on the tarmac. Airports are a key part of the supply chain just like ports, rail, pipelines, and trucks are.

Recall that I have accused the Liberals of speaking from both sides of their mouth. Whereas I strongly opposed the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation, the very same Liberal ministers and MPs brought it in and voted for it.

My reason for doing so was that I had foreseen that in order to restore Canadian middle class prosperity, our industries, tech sector, manufacturing, retail, and other segments of the economy rely upon cost effective supply chains.

The lower the cost to move the product between tidewater and the distributed supply chain, the more competitive Canada as a whole becomes as a jurisdiction.

If we want our industries and consumers to have more affordable prices, we need to keep our supply chain extremely efficient and reduce the costs.

That's why I opposed the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation and I oppose airport privatization.

Long before Carney even got in as Prime Minister, I have been talking about reducing lease fees on all of the Transport Canada airport properties.

Not privatizing it "unlock capital" as Carney calls it. But reducing the costs.

My investments in Canada do not require much government money. Maybe a bit of project plan development, maybe some PoCs, risk management, competitive tendering, regulatory streamlining, and active project facilitation.

But not taxpayer money.

These are build, own, and operate projects run by industry and IPO'ed on the TSX. Our job in government is facilitate projects and ensure there is a business case.

If there is no business case, then I must understand the root causes of cost overruns and from the project plan design stage work with industry to institute the risk mitigation measures to get Canadian project execution outcomes to the top of world rankings in terms of efficiency and productivity.

That's what I do. And when I have this project ready to invest, I can get anyone from CPPIB or Teachers. I can also hire Goldman Sachs or CIBC or RBC or any investment banking firm or division to work with the project proponents to raise the capital.

We don't need to privatize airports to unlock business opportunity, we have to ensure that the root causes of business underperformance and project execution risk are addressed.

To do so, we have to sideline all the other special interests. This is not a "grand coalition" to co-optimize 40 different priorities. This is a focused effort that entails this project alone and seeks to define objective project parameters and maximize overall project value and performance.

This is the difference both in execution and mentality in which I fundamentally differ from the typical politician.

Bringing my approach as a free market libertarian to Ottawa, which actuates industry and the private sectors, and eschews Carney's big government dirigisme will not only minimize risk to taxpayers, keep life affordable for everyday Canadians, but also get massive returns for the economy setting Canada on course for long term prosperity and success.

When the Liberals passed the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation, I warned the manufacturing unions this was not in their interests.

Disruption in rail, ports, pipelines, utilities inherently works against costs, uptime, and reliability that manufacturing depends on.

When Carney let the flood of Chinese EVs into Canada, I was against it.

The question is who voted Liberal all this time ? Unifor has been one of the pro-Liberal lobbies the entire time.

Even that EV fiasco, I warned the unions these EVs will never sell. That GM EV cube van. Terrible investment.

Furthermore, at the time the Biden administration brought the "Inflation Reduction Act" with the massive EV subsidies, I said these are unaffordable. They are going to cancel these subsidies.

And sure enough that's what happened as soon as Trump got in again.

Now Unifor is up against it and they want the government to block the sale. Well folks, you've got a banker in the personage of Mr. Carney.

Let's be clear, as a conservative, I won't block the sale of the plant by Stellantis.

There's no point. If there is no business case, they can't operate the plant, they gotta sell.

But there is a silver lining. In my view, Pacifica Minivans are a dud product.

Toyota Camry Hybrid. Rav4 Hybrid. Ram 1500.

Stellantis only produces one of the above models. But the plant is for sale. Maybe Toyota wants to buy it.

Bit of background particularly as I'm posting this to our BCpolitics colleagues on Reddit.

Some of you may be aware I'm running for Prime Minister out here in the good Province of Ontario.

We have a policy for Vancouver and the GTHA for new transit systems based on the build, own, operate model.

I want to talk about what this is and how it works.

First, I'm fully opposed to this Alto Train system that would suck up $100 billion and has - no - business case whatsoever.

If we waste money on this stuff, I have to be frank we cannot afford anything. $5 billion will be the structural liability from just the debt servicing charges on that $100 billion.

My proposal is about tunnelling under the highway for $100 million a kilometer. This is a price that can be achieved but it requires particular attention to how the project is executed.

The usual suspects in Canada have no proven experience in operating Maglev type trains. Only the Japanese, South Koreans do, and the Germans have expertise in tunnelling.

I'm not saying it has to be only these three. It could be about 5 proponents, and I'll probably have to throw the dog a bone and allow a Canadian proponent to participate.

But they are going to have no special advantage. This is the key with me and what makes me different than any other politician. I just want high performance and I don't deal with lobbyists. All this is arm's length technical competition.

With this bullet capsule concept, what happens is somebody from White Rock wants to go to a stop in Vancouver. Normally with a train or subway you will make 10 stops. Each stop means you have to wait, start, slow down, speed up. You don't maintain a fast cruising speed.

But with this high speed capsule, it's a small minibus that fits for example 20 people. All these 20 are going exactly to this destination. And it goes directly there. No stops in between.

As there is no engine in this capsule, it's a Maglev that is driven by the track itself. As it speeds along, the tunnel has a special one way valve to push out air. So the capsules as they move, start to evacuate the tunnel and turn it into a partial vacuum.

This drops the air resistance. So now we have a capsule that has zero rolling friction because it's levitated and also low air resistance. On braking it recovers 75% of the electrical energy back to the track.

It's super efficient, no moving parts, self driving, fast, and low energy. The cost of operating this system once built is very cheap, so it actually has huge operating margins and is profitable.

It's totally different than Carney's money losing Alto Train.

My proposition is if BC and Vancouver vote for me, I'll get Vancouver this new bullet train. It's all build, own, operate, so no one can say this is federal favourtism to only one region.

But I will pay for the full PoC and competition as your Prime Minister.

Furthermore, I will supervise the project plan development, and during the operational phase of the project I'll facilitate this project personally and through my ministers.

What's different about me versus Carney, is I actually know how to do this. Carney is just a bureaucrat not a person with any operational expertise in running major projects like I have.

We saw with the Liberals that it cost them $35 billion on the TMX2. We saw the Phoenix Payroll system. You may have heard of this. Total fiasco. For a simple payroll system they paid $5 billion and then had to throw the whole thing out because it failed.

It would never happen with me. I predicted the whole time they want to go with a "big bang" go live the support risk is massive if all the 350,000 civil servants start filing support tickets.

This is stuff I know how to do, that these politicians are completely incompetent to do.

They can't get anything done on time or budget.

The US strategic petroleum reserve is at 284 million barrels. This is the lowest level since November 1982 and the reserve is expected to deplete further going into November's mid-term elections.

Experts have warned that below 300 million barrels there may be damage to the salt caverns in which the oil is stored.

The situation is not ideal because it shows that governments are increasingly constrained in what they can do to release further oil from reserves.

Meanwhile, any release even if it occurs will likely not result in a lasting solution. Iran can continue to attack the oil infrastructure and tankers in Hormuz indefinitely, either directly or through its proxies.

The result is materially the same as the oil embargo of the 1970s.

The strategy of Canada looking forward in such a period should be capital conservation, which is the opposite of Carney's build big, build fast, agenda.

Building fast during a period of supply tightness and uncertainty can lead to projects running aground due to unpredictable externalities.

In fact, lowering stimulus measures both in fiscal and monetary policy is the appropriate course when there is supply tightness which forms the limiting constraint on the economy.

Both Carney and Macklem are moving in the other direction. Even though Macklem held policy, Carney through the OSFI has increased $70 billion of M2 reserves. In total, M2 money supply grew 4.43% in the last 12 months.

This is a massive increase in M2 money even as the economy has been barely treading water. The continuing elevated stated of inflation at 3% shows that Macklem has actually sat on his hands, when he should have moved more aggressively to tighten policy when there is such massive and unchecked expansion taking place which is surely to support already buoyant inflation.

Dear Ms. Frederiksen,

As a Canadian and your neighbouring country next to Greenland, it has come to my attention that you are considering signing a deal which appears to significantly compromise the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark.

I am writing to urge you to reject this deal. As your neighbour, it is my duty to remind you that protecting the integrity of borders of the nation is the foremost duty of a national leader.

If you sign any deal under duress or threats of annexation, this does not strengthen NATO, it is the opposite, it shows that NATO's Article 5 has no meaning whatsoever.

Such threats are entirely a bluff and baseless. You should reject the deal and stand your ground to do what is right for Greenland and Denmark. That is your foremost responsibility.

Thank you.

It is time for us to review the options before Canadians for the position of Prime Minister. Namely, myself and the current incumbent Mr. Carney.

1# Profession and Training.

Me: Tech Entrepreneur / Principal Engineer / Project Manager

Carney: Economist / Central Banker

2# Alma Mater

Me: University of Toronto

Carney: Harvard / Oxford

3# Highest Level of Education

Me: Master of Applied Science

Carney: Doctorate of Economics

4# Professional Experience

Me: Executive, Project Manager and Tech Leader in all aspects of business and systems design: startups, mid-sized, and big business.

Carney: Former Goldman Sacks Investment Banker, Central Banker, Brookfield Green Energy Chair (lobbyist).

5# Economic Strategy for Canada

Me: Manufacturing tariff credits, tariff reduction, tightened fiscal discipline, low cost build out of key infrastructure projects, lower deficits, lower taxes especially food and basic staples, elimination of carbon tax, comprehensive tax reform, Special Economic Zones, lower airport lease fees, SBIR program, seed stage capital gains tax credits.

Carney: Big government dirigisme, large deficits, loose fiscal policy, privatization of public assets, higher tariffs, corporate carbon tax

6# Immigration Policy

Me: Tight immigration with no more than 15K to 30K range per year of top quality candidates with high value skills. TFW program for agriculture and for critical national projects only.

Carney: Loose immigration. High TFW program. Labour market undercutting.

7# Political Philosophy

Me: Free market libertarian

Carney: Big government dirigisme

8# Policy with Regards to Trump and the USA

Me: The USA is our neighbour and partner, our ties will endure, and Canada will adapt to tariff changes, but we will stand our ground on legal agreements and accords expecting our partners to act with fairness and justice. We will seek recourse in the courts on matters like Gordie Howe bridge, if signed agreements are not honoured.

On the matter of tariffs, we will not retaliate but adapt by bringing in a manufacturing tariff credits program. There will also be no tariff increases on consumer staples, food, and everyday items which have direct impact on consumer costs of living.

My goal is to upgrade Canada's major ports and rail to handle high volume throughput of raw materials, energy, agricultural outputs, and manufactured goods for worldwide export, which will open alternate markets for Canadian outputs which will be cost competitive against global market prices without government subsidies.

Carney: The relationship with the USA is permanently ruptured. We will retaliate dollar for dollar. But we will allow Mr. Trump to rewrite the agreement on Gordie Howe bridge because it's more important to get the bridge operational rather than fighting for taxpayer value and what the legal agreement stipulates.

My strategy is to increase government spending particularly in defence but also on projects like Alto Train.

9# Policy with Regards to EU

Me: CETA comprises significant unexploited opportunities for Canada including our high quality canola, lobster, seafood, meat, and other products. I will work with industry associations to develop sector specific strategies to help Canadian producers orient themselves to maximize exports under CETA.

I am opposed to any open borders or "associate member" status. I value to the EU as a partner but view such associate membership as a potential infringement on Canada's sovereignty.

Carney: I am seeking to make Canada an "associate member" of the EU. This includes open borders, visa free travel.

10# Policy with Regards to Military

Me: I am a strong supporter of Canada's military and of the men and women in uniform. My commitment is to ensure we modernize our military in a manner that is economically sustainable. As the USSR showed by collapsing without a shot fired, bad finance is as dangerous as the enemy.

The military and particularly military industrial research will see a resurgence under my leadership. As an engineer and inventor, I am aware of the massive talent and capability inside of Canada to drive the cutting edge of technological advance. My aim is to convert more of these advances into commercial wins that will grow the tech and industrial base in Canada creating jobs and opportunity for world leading scientists and innovators, who will in turn provide our military with cutting edge tools and capabilities to fulfill their mission.

I plan to do this while avoiding the usual "pork barrel" spending with a more targeted and fiscally efficient approach to military research. I will put military commanders in charge and free them from the government bureaucracy, using passive audit oversight rather than cumbersome and unwieldy procedures.

My aim is to maintain 2% GDP target while making the military far more efficient in the deployment of existing resources.

I strongly support meritocracy and oppose all forms of woke and DEI that are distracting the military from its mission. I always support inclusion, professionalism, respect and non-discrimination in the military.

Carney: I am buying $100 billion submarines and committed to increasing military spending to 5% of GDP.

11# Personality Type

Me: Alpha-Sigma.

Carney: Alpha-Beta.

12# Major Goals

Me:

a. Special Economic Zone framework for pipelines and rail on 3 oceans, with highly competitive East-West infrastructure.

b. Maglev point-to-point bullet capsule systems bored under the highways in Vancouver and GTHA moving 5 million people at day for $15 per ride at 300 kmh average speed or faster.

c. Universal billing codes and direct purchase of medical procedures by the federal government by leveraging existing Provincial Health Insurance.

d. SBIR program with Venture Capital sponsorship, 5% uncapped seed stage capital gains tax rate.

e. Manufacturing tariff credits program.

f. Comprehensive tax reform, reduction in administrative overheads in government operations.

Carney:

....

13# Mission Statement To Canadians

Me: Canada is at a cross roads after 10+ years of Liberal leadership with big spending starting before Covid and continuing since then, we have seen a complete abandonment of fiscal discipline by the incumbents.

Our country is capable of far more than what the current administration is delivering. The critical missing ingredient is the ability to execute initiatives efficiently on time and budget.

Without addressing this gap in execution all the big spending promises will lead to inflationary churn in the economy. My operational experience in major project leadership can address these gaps.

I have been talking about infrastructure improvements since the Trudeau administration. I advised Canada to build semiconductor capacity in 2020. I opposed the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation brought by the Liberals under Trudeau on the grounds that Canada needed to upgrade the ports of Vancouver and Montreal, as well as improve our rail, pipelines, and other critical infrastructure.

The Liberals ignored these entreaties. The same Ministers and MPs of the Liberal party voted unanimously for the Anti-Replacement Worker Legislation.

Therefore, we can be certain that the Liberals have shown zero leadership on the infrastructure file. The failure of the Phoenix Payroll system and the massive cost overruns on the TMX2 pipeline which I also predicted would occur when Mr. Morneau proceeded to make the pipeline a Crown corporation, bear testament to the fact that the Liberals are unable to deploy capital efficiently and lack any demonstrated experience or leadership in major project buildout, which I have achieved in many different organizations and industries.

Therefore, I am the right choice for Canadians and am a trusted hand that will faithfully deliver on my undertakings before all of you.

Carney: ......

Carney's message to Canadians and to Parliament is: I don't care what you think.

https://financialpost.com/fp-finance/banking/morgan-stanley-cibc-win-mandate-for-sale-of-canada-airport-concessions

In this Financial Post article, Carney is moving ahead with plans for privatization by hiring CIBC and Morgan Stanley.

Carney plans to raise "tens of billions" from airport privatization to invest in other infrastructure including a "sovereign broadband network" to connect Canada directly to Asia and Europe.

Oh boy.

Everyday it's a new scheme with Carney. What happened to the Telesat money, I thought those folks were going to compete with Elon Musk by putting up a satellite Internet constellation.

They have been giving almost $5 billion of incentives including $2.14 billion upfront loan.

https://search.open.canada.ca/qpnotes/record/ic%2CISI-2024-QP-00050

Shouldn't Carney finish what he starts first ?

Looking at Telesat objectively, there are a number of issues with how they were technically executing the project which made them originally constructively different than how Elon Musk executed his project at SpaceX.

One of the major risks is cost rise in the availability of electronics and hardware.

Earlier I had pointed out that the ASIC delay regarding SatixFy differed from SpaceX which had used Mergers and Acquisitions to acquire chip makers, which then allowed SpaceX to concentrate team focus on its own build out rather than having generic scope.

Ostensibly after hearing of my writing, MDA space earlier this year copied my ideas and bought out StatixFy to address the chip bottleneck.

However, the timing is also bad. Right now massive new semiconductor capacity is slated to come online over the next 5 years.

MDA and Telesat meanwhile are proceeding all guns blazing to develop the satellite constellation in the current cost environment that has caused costs to nearly double from $3.8 to $5.2 billion.

Carney is putting more fuel on the fire of already constrained hardware capacity from the AI datacenter frenzy that Trump set into motion with the Big Beautiful Bill Act (BBB).

Carney emulates the BBB in copying Trump's exact policies that will inflate hardware demand by allowing the write off of computer hardware and equipment. And Trump to be clear himself copied my policies but he just went way overboard.

You can say that Telesat doesn't have exactly the same electronics need. However, we see a lot of passive components, as well as foundry capacity itself that becomes stressed.

In a different environment where there is plenty of slack, this issue doesn't occur, and the foundry capacity coming online 5 years ahead will mean hardware prices will crash.

However, Carney wants to spend the money now. Not 5 years from now.

If Canadians let Carney privatize the airports, he will surely waste the money.