Husband, father to 4 boys. Exploring the ethics, values, and motivations driving the people behind the scenes that keep our lights on and society functioning.
Alberta, Canada
Joined September 2020
- Tweets1.3K
- Following841
- Followers351
- Likes51.4K
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
The admirable consistency of Pierre Poilievre’s conservatism
Pierre Poilievre’s leadership review results were ultimately anticlimactic. Nearly 90 percent of convention delegates endorsed his leadership and his vision of conservatism.
What is that vision of conservatism? We got a window into it during his convention speech last night.
At a time when centre-Right parties around the world are abandoning traditional conservatism in favour of culture wars and dirigiste economics, and some are calling on the Canadian Conservatives to follow in the same direction, Poilievre’s own conservatism, which hasn’t changed since he was a young man, remains notably orthodox—in a good way.
He talked about the hidden costs of big government—not just what it spends, but what it invisibly prevents: investment that never happens, businesses that never form, ambition that slowly gets regulated out of existence. It echoed the old Bastiat insight that public policy must account for what we can easily see as well as the consequences that never make it into the political spotlight.
Poilievre’s cultural message was similarly restrained. It wasn’t framed as a campaign to purify institutions or to wage war on enemies within. It was closer to a small-l liberal ethic: let people live their lives and let government “mind its own business.” That idea has a lineage of its own—one that runs through classical liberalism and into postwar conservative thought, including the Hayekian suspicion that states which claim to reorder society seldom stop at the margins.
And then there was his aspirational thread about recovery, addiction, and rebuilding lives. This was more than a simple law-and-order message. It was a moral claim about agency and redemption and the equal dignity of individuals, including those who’ve fallen. Call it Burkean, call it Christian realist, call it a form of civic faith. It was a powerful expression of Polievre’s case about what kind of citizens remain once government steps back.
There was even a flash of Ronald Reagan’s old axiom about the tendency of governments to regulate, tax, and subsidize things.
This was a speech that will disappoint those calling for a major pivot to the threats and provocation of Donald Trump and who wanted Poilievre to directly address the president’s threat to Canada and Trumpism’s threat to Canadian conservatism. Instead, he mostly focused on the growing gap between the Carney government’s rhetorical ambitions and its actual results and the socio-economic consequences for Canada.
But just because Poilievre didn’t explicitly call out Trump and Trumpism doesn’t mean that he didn’t address it. His articulation of a conservatism rooted in limited government, personal freedom, and the dignity of the individual—what he characterized as “smaller government for bigger citizens”—was an implicit expression of traditional conservative ideas and a rejection of Trumpian illiberalism and those who believe that the Conservative Party ought to remake itself broadly in that image. In a moment of conservative heterodoxy, Polievre deserves credit for his orthodoxy.
Notwithstanding the strong endorsement of Conservative supporters, it’s hard to know if Poilievre will ultimately become Canada’s next prime minister. As we were reminded last year, politics has a way of humbling confident predictions. But his speech was a sign that, either way, he isn’t going to change who he is or what he thinks Canadian conservatism should be.
There’s something admirable about that.
.@Sean_Speer: Pierre Poilievre secured a resounding win—here’s why: The Weekly Wrap
thehub.ca/2026/01/31/pierre-…
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
Get married, have kids, and stop partying into oblivion.
Leave a legacy, be courageous.
Happy Sunday
God Bless all the parents out there
🙏
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
We must all strongly denounce the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Political violence is NEVER justified. The attacker must be brought to justice. And free speech must be upheld.
Pray for Mr. Kirk and his family.
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
The person who believes every conspiracy theory is just as gullible as the person who believes every story from the corporate press.
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
Democracy Watch Blows the Whistle on Carney’s Ethics Sham
So here’s something the media doesn’t want to talk about because it shatters the entire illusion they’ve built around the man they now call Prime Minister: Mark Carney. The technocratic savior, the former banker with all the right globalist credentials, the guy who jets between Davos and Ottawa with a PowerPoint and a carbon tax. And yet, today buried under polite headlines and careful euphemisms a watchdog group in Canada finally said what should’ve been obvious to anyone paying attention.
Mark Carney’s ethics screen and his so-called “blind trust” are scams. Period.
That’s not hyperbole. That’s from Democracy Watch, one of the last remaining ethics organizations in the country that hasn’t been swallowed by the federal funding machine or bullied into silence by the PMO. In a statement released this week, they laid out—point by point—how Carney’s financial arrangement is not just flawed, but a “loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen.” Their words. And they’re right.
Let’s go through it.
Carney, who now controls the federal government, holds investments in over 550 companies. Five hundred and fifty. That includes stock options in Brookfield Asset Management, where he used to be vice-chair, and a major stake in Stripe, the Silicon Valley payment processor. Yet we’re told, by government and press alike, that all is well because he’s placed these assets in a “blind trust.” Sounds reassuring, doesn’t it?
But here’s the problem. It’s not blind. Not even close.
According to Democracy Watch, Carney knows exactly what’s in that trust. Why? Because he put the assets in himself, he chose his own trustee, and he was allowed to instruct the trustee not to sell anything. Read that again. He told the trustee: keep my investments intact. And that trustee? Free to give him updates.
So, what part of this is blind?
The answer is: none of it. And it gets worse. Carney holds stock options in Brookfield Corporation and Brookfield Asset Management—options that he cannot sell for years. Which means even if he wanted to claim ignorance, he can’t. He knows he owns them. Everyone knows he owns them. And now he’s making policy decisions that shape the very industries those companies operate in—climate policy, tech investment, financial regulation, you name it.
Let’s call this what it is. It’s a conflict of interest so massive it makes Justin Trudeau’s WE Charity scandal look like a lemonade stand. And yet, this isn’t even the worst part.
Carney’s ethics screen, the list of 103 companies he’s supposedly recused from dealing with—doesn’t cover the full 550+. It only applies to a fraction. But even among those 103, the federal Conflict of Interest Act contains a loophole so big you could drive a solar-powered Brookfield wind turbine through it.
It’s called the “general application” exemption. Under this clause, public office holders like, say, the Prime Minister; can fully participate in decisions that impact industries or economic sectors as a whole, so long as those decisions aren’t “targeted” at a specific company. So if Carney signs off on a $10 billion green tech fund that pumps value into Brookfield’s renewables portfolio? That’s legal. Because it’s general.
In fact, according to Democracy Watch, that loophole applies to “99% of the decisions” cabinet ministers make. So despite having personal investments tied to hundreds of companies, Carney can still sit in meetings, shape policy, and direct subsidies that increase the value of his trust, without technically breaking the rules.
Lets call this what it is, this is legalized insider dealing.
And remember this: every time a public official recuses themselves, they’re supposed to make a public declaration. That’s the law under Section 25(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act. But former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson—remember her?—helped invent a system of “ethics screens” that lets politicians bypass that requirement.
Set up a screen, tell the public you’re recused from everything, then quietly participate in decisions behind closed doors. No disclosure. No accountability. No paper trail.
Justice Parker, way back in 1987, warned us about this. In his landmark commission on conflicts of interest, he recommended banning blind trusts outright and requiring all top officials to sell their private investments. Why? Because it’s the only way to guarantee integrity. You cannot serve the public while holding shares in private companies that rise or fall based on your decisions. Period.
And yet here we are. The new Prime Minister. Over 550 investments. A fake blind trust. A self-policed ethics screen. And a legal loophole so wide open, it makes lobbying look quaint.
Now here’s the part no one will say out loud: this system is designed to be abused. It’s not broken. It’s working exactly as intended. The people writing the rules are the same ones benefiting from them. And Carney? He’s not breaking norms—he is the norm.
Democracy Watch is right. The only solution is for Carney to sell his investments, including his Brookfield stock options. End the charade. Choose public service over private profit. But he won’t. And the reason is simple: the swamp doesn’t drain itself.
This isn’t transparency. This isn’t accountability. This is how the ruling class launders power through legal technicalities, and then has the audacity to lecture you about ethics.
And if you still believe that a man who used to run a trillion-dollar fund, who sits on hundreds of corporate stakes, who appointed his own ethics babysitter and told them not to sell anything—that this man is governing in your interest?
Then I’ve got a “blind” trust to sell you.
Source : democracywatch.ca/pm-carneys…
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
No, they are not. Stop gaslighting an entire generation! FFS
Worth a read.
A Predictable Retreat- Canada Reversed Course on the Digital Services Tax
Warnings were clear from experts, industry, and trade partners—yet Ottawa moved forward. Now, with negotiations at risk and tariffs mounting, the government is walking back its digital tax policy.
It’s official, Canada just folded. The Trudeau-Carney DST, the retroactive digital tax on U.S. tech giants that triggered a full-blown trade crisis, is dead. Gone. Rescinded. And not because of some multilateral agreement or smart diplomacy. No. It’s gone because Donald Trump walked away, shut the door on trade negotiations, and dared Canada to blink. And blink they did.
The news dropped like a stone out of Ottawa: Canada’s Liberal government—now led by Mark Carney, the global finance technocrat turned Prime Minister—announced it will halt collection of the Digital Services Tax and bring forward legislation to formally repeal it. All to “support negotiations” with the U.S., now aiming for a July 21 deal. Carney was sold to Canadians as some sort of economic savior—a sober, seasoned banker who’d deliver Harper-style fiscal resurgence. People thought they were getting 2008-era competence. What they got instead was a recycled globalist who walked straight into an avoidable trade blunder with the DST that nearly torched Canada’s largest economic relationship.
Turns out the suit doesn’t make the man—and the buzzwords don’t build the economy. But let’s be honest—this was inevitable.
Carney’s tax was a political vanity project from the beginning. A 3% levy on revenue, not profit. Retroactive to 2022. Aimed squarely at American companies. And everyone saw where it would lead: retaliation, tariffs, trade breakdown. Trump made it clear. The business community warned him. Expert testimony in Parliament predicted it word for word. But Carney, like Trudeau before him, pushed ahead with ideological arrogance and zero economic sense.
Now they’re backpedaling—hard.
Here’s what François-Philippe Champagne—Canada’s Finance and National Revenue Minister—had the nerve to say while announcing the death of the Digital Services Tax:
“Canada’s new government is focused on building the strongest economy in the G7 and standing up for Canadian workers and businesses. Rescinding the digital services tax will allow the negotiations of a new economic and security relationship with the United States to make vital progress and reinforce our work to create jobs and build prosperity for all Canadians.”
Really? That’s the line now? After pushing through a retroactive digital tax designed to punish American firms, sparking a trade war, and watching Trump walk away from the table?
Let’s be honest—this tax wasn’t about “standing up” for Canadians. It was a copy-paste EU policy, inspired by the bureaucrats in Brussels who’ve spent years trying to kneecap American tech because they can’t compete. And what did Ottawa do? They followed Europe right off a cliff—without the economic leverage or tech sector to back it up.
And now? With Trump threatening to torch trade negotiations? Where’s the EU? Nowhere. Silent. Not a word. No coordinated defense. No solidarity. Because they’re not the ones getting hit with 25% tariffs on auto parts and steel—Canada is. That’s what you get when you hitch your policy wagon to a continent with no skin in your game.
Here’s the truth the Liberals don’t want to admit: they’re mad that Canada doesn’t have a homegrown Amazon, Twitter, Uber, or Netflix—but they wouldn't know what to do with one if they did. Why? Because the second it got big, they’d tax it to oblivion.
Instead of fostering innovation, streamlining regulations, and letting competition thrive, they attack success with punitive taxes and endless red tape. Canada is anti-competitive by design—a country where the market is controlled by monopolies, protected incumbents, and a government that punishes growth instead of enabling it.
That’s why we don’t have global tech champions. It’s not a lack of talent—it’s a lack of freedom. The feds don’t want innovators. They want tax targets.
Don’t believe me? Look at the Shaw–Rogers merger. The federal government signed off on one of the largest telecom consolidations in Canadian history—shrinking the number of national wireless providers and handing even more market power to an already dominant player. How is allowing less competition better for consumers? It’s not.
And the results? Exactly what you'd expect. The Competition Bureau has flagged concerns that Rogers is failing to offer pricing comparable to the affordable bundled plans that Shaw Mobile customers once had, especially in Western Canada, where affordability was already a concern.
The data backs it up. In June 2025, Rogers rolled out a revamped set of mobile plans—with higher prices across the board:
Essentials Plan: Up from $50 to $65 for 100GB (with 58GB bonus, now totaling 158GB)
Popular Plan: Up from $60 to $75 for 175GB
Ultimate Plan: Up from $75 to $95 for 250GB
These aren’t improvements—they’re price hikes. And they’re the direct consequence of a government that thinks consolidation is good policy and competition is a threat.
But let’s not kid ourselves—this retreat on the DST was necessary. Even the meth head on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, eyes fixed on the pavement in full-blown fentanyl withdrawal, could’ve seen this one coming. You don’t slap a retroactive tax on the biggest, most powerful companies in the world—companies headquartered in your largest trading partner—and expect it to go unnoticed. You certainly don’t expect it to go unpunished.
But here we are.
I’ve seen incompetence before. I’ve seen arrogance. But this? This was willful ignorance wrapped in ideology and sold as economic policy. Everyone said this tax would have repercussions. Business leaders. Trade experts. Even Canada’s own financial institutions. It was all on the record. And yet Carney and the Liberals plowed ahead like nothing could go wrong.
Well, it did. Canada got hit. Trump walked. And now the same people who dragged the country into this mess are congratulating themselves for cleaning it up.
And here we are. Wreckage everywhere.
This wasn’t just predictable. It was inevitable.
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
Our Federal Government seems convinced that basic economic principles and physical laws do not apply within Canada's borders.
And in the eternal battle between ideology and reality, reality remains undefeated.
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
THIS is how far Canada has fallen, the year was 2015:
-Canada had the richest middle class in the world
-Canada was named the "most admired" country in the world
-Canada's debt was roughly 1/4 of what it is now
-Housing cost half as much
-Rent was $950/mo
-foodbanks weren't overloaded
-Canada and the USA were EQUALLY as wealthy per capita
-The USA and Canada were best friends
-Canada and the US were tied for richest countries in the G7
-Canada wasnt involved in any major trade wars
-Immigration was 1/3rd of what it was in 2024
-We were the 5th happiest country in the world
-The median house was only 5x the median income (now its close to 8)
....you know what we should probably do -- vote Liberal again.
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
If you only read one post of mine this election cycle, please read this one.🧵
/1
Turns out Canada is broken, and The Liberals™️ know it.
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
NEW
Freeland's resignation letter in Dec claimed that she was resigning because:
"Canada needs to keep its fiscal powder dry.... we need reserves for the trade war ..." and "political gimmicks" were too costly.
She is now supporting Carney's deficits which are TWICE as high.
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
Remember how we got here…Christia Freeland resigned as FinMin because the Trudeau deficit was so irresponsibly huge.
Today, Carney upended that deficit and promised an even bigger one.
Canadians as I’ve known us have always had a good sense of humour about ourselves. 10 years ago - hell, 5 years ago - someone calling us “the 51st state” would have had us all laughing it off.
Why do you think it’s hitting so many Canadians differently now?
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
The last thing you see before you are priced out of a house, forever.
PlaidJacketPhilosopher🎙🇨🇦 retweeted
Remember when they told us the carbon tax wasn't inflationary?
... but the Bank of Canada's Monetary Policy now says it's removal is disinflationary?
"The removal of the consumer carbon tax permanently lowers the path of consumer prices and lowers inflation for one year"
