Terra Coté

When my husband died in late summer last year, my daughter and I didn't just lose him. We lost more than half our household income overnight. Suddenly, every dollar had a job. Every bill became a math problem. Because my income dropped so dramatically, I became eligible for a GST rebate of about $435. To some people, that might sound like a nice little bonus. To people like me, trying to live on less than $27,000 a year, it's not spending money. It's survival money. Where I live, water, garbage, and recycling cost me $520 every three months. Coincidentally, those bills arrive around the same time as the GST rebate. So the GST cheque doesn't buy treats. It doesn't fund vacations. It doesn't even make life easier. It mostly disappears into a utility bill before I can blink. Today I'm sharing screenshots from my CRA account to demonstrate the federal government's latest affordability miracle with their renamed GST benefit masquerading as the Groceries and Essentials Benefit. My GST rebate went up. By six dollars. Not sixty. Not six hundred. Six. Apparently somewhere in Ottawa, somebody looked at the affordability crisis facing Canadians and thought: "Hmm, needs more half sandwich."🤔 What makes this worse is knowing there are millions of Canadians out there who need help just as badly as I do, but don't qualify for a penny of it. People working two jobs. People trying to raise families. Seniors watching every grocery bill climb higher. People doing everything right and still falling behind. So to @MarkJCarney, I have a simple question. Why are you celebrating the existence of a Grocery and Essentials Benefit instead of asking why Canadians need one in the first place? How much did it cost taxpayers for the photo-op? Do you not see the hypocrisy in it? Because that is the part I can't understand. A government should not be standing in a grocery store congratulating itself for handing back a few dollars of taxpayers' own money. A government should be creating the conditions where people can afford groceries without government assistance. The goal should be fewer Canadians needing benefits, not more! I'm not proud to qualify for this. 👉🏻 I don't want to qualify for a government cheque. 👉🏻 I don't want to qualify for a renamed GST rebate. 👉🏻 I don't want my kid to qualify for a school lunch program because parents can no longer afford lunches. I want an economy where ordinary Canadians can stand on their own feet and keep more of what they earn and be proud about it. The fact that Ottawa felt the need to rename the GST rebate to include the words "Groceries and Essentials" should have set off alarm bells in every cabinet office in the country. Because groceries and essentials are not luxuries. If Canadians need government assistance to afford the basics of life, that is not evidence of success. It's evidence that something has gone very badly wrong. What makes it even harder to stomach is watching a government talk about borrowing billions for new projects and sovereign wealth funds while ordinary Canadians are being told to celebrate an extra six dollars. Six dollars! That's not economic leadership. That's a receipt. Perhaps the question Canadians should be asking is this: If #MarkCarney's resume is as impressive as advertised, why do the results look like this? At some point, Canadians stop listening to credentials and start looking at outcomes. And the outcomes are speaking for themselves!

Majority By Override (Five floor crossers gave Carney power Canadians never did. Now every failure lands squarely on him.) Dear Carney Liberals, Congratulations. Not for winning Canadians over. That part is still very much in dispute. No, congratulations on finding a way around them. Canadians voted. They chose parties, platforms, and direction. They sent MPs to Ottawa to carry that forward. That was the deal. And then you broke it. Five MPs, elected under one banner, crossed the floor and handed you the seats you could not win. Not after a new vote. Not after asking their constituents. After. The ballots were cast. The outcome was clear. You changed it anyway. That is not a majority. That is a retrofit. And let’s be clear. Not ONE Canadian believes those five MPs had a sudden divine, moral epiphany and discovered Liberalism as the only righteous path. Anyone that says they do is lying. No one believes that. Not in those ridings. Not anywhere. That story isn’t just weak. It’s insulting. It takes a very specific kind of smug, insulated elitism to assume Canadians are dumb enough to accept it. This wasn’t principle. This was convenience. Which brings us to the problem you created. What is the value of a vote if it can be nullified after the fact by the person elected to respect it? You vote for Party A. Your MP defects to Party B. Your riding is now represented by the opposite of what you chose. No say. No recall. No consequence. Just a press conference and a new seat. That is what you are calling a mandate. You didn’t just gain five seats. You overrode five electorates. You replaced voter intent with political utility. And now you have your majority. The one Canadians did not give you. Which means you now hold full legislative power without ever securing full public support. So let’s drop the script. You did not do this for routine governance. You know it. We know it. You did it because you intend to use it. Majorities exist to pass what would otherwise fail. That means what is coming cannot survive scrutiny, amendment, or resistance. You didn’t assemble this to cooperate. You assembled it to override. And here is where your problem starts. You didn’t just take power. You took ownership of everything that follows. Every decision is now yours. Every failure. Every misstep. There is no minority gridlock to hide behind. No opposition to blame. No excuses left. You asked for full control. Now you carry full weight. That includes your own benches. Loyal backbenchers, sidelined while political imports take space and influence. That kind of resentment doesn’t disappear. It waits. Sometimes very, very patiently. And then there is the scrutiny. The kind that sharpens the moment you no longer need permission to act. Every contradiction lands harder. Every ethical lapse lingers longer. Every double standard gets harder to explain. Flying on taxpayer dollars while preaching restraint. Expanding spending while telling Canadians to tighten their belts. Selling sacrifice while living untouched by it. Those gaps don’t close. They widen. Just ask the last Liberal government how long that holds. It doesn’t. Because the more power you take, the harder it is to carry without dropping something. And when things start to drop, they don’t fall one at a time. They cascade. And that is what you’ve set in motion. You bypassed voters to get here. You concentrated power to stay here. Now you get to absorb what comes next. Because you can fool some of the people some of the time. But not half the country forever. Sincerely, Melanie in Saskatchewan And the voters you overruled. 👇🏻 open.substack.com/pub/melani…? 👇🏻 buymeacoffee.com/melanieinsa…

CARNEY ACCIDENTALLY VINDICATES POILIEVRE 😂 Open Letter to Canada’s Security Clearance Scolds: Carney Just Proved Pierre Right! To every #Liberal and #NDP partisan who has spent the last year yelling “security clearance” like it is a magic spell that turns criticism into treason, congratulations. Mark Carney just demonstrated Pierre Poilievre’s point for him, on camera, in real time. The moment came yesterday, March 3, 2026, during Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Indo-Pacific trip. After meetings in India with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Carney held a press availability with Canadian media while travelling through the region. The topic journalists wanted clarified was not subtle. They asked about foreign interference linked to India and the 2023 assassination of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, British Columbia, the allegation that detonated Canada’s diplomatic crisis with India. The question came from Dylan Robertson of The Canadian Press during the media scrum. He asked directly whether @MarkJCarney believed India continued to engage in foreign interference or transnational repression targeting Canadians. Carney swerved. He was asked again. And again. Eventually, after the careful circling that reluctantly-speaking politicians deploy when a straight answer would be inconvenient, he landed on the tell. Not the kind you need a polygraph for. The kind you publish in a civics textbook. Here is what he said, exactly: “… There are aspects of those briefings that I can’t share in public, and I’m not going to betray them. I will tell you that there is progress on these issues.” Read that again, slowly, with a spoon handy in case you choke on the irony. Because this is the whole debate in one neat little ribbon. Pierre Poilievre’s argument, from the start, has been that the particular classified briefings being pushed would place him inside a legal box. Once inside it, the rules governing those briefings restrict what he can say publicly and how he can use the information while doing his job as Leader of the Opposition. Global News reported Poilievre’s office saying officials told them the briefing structure could leave him legally prevented from speaking publicly about certain information except in narrow ways, which they argued would “render him unable to effectively use any relevant information he received.” Now, re-watch what just happened. #Carney, the man with the clearance and the briefings, is asked direct questions about one of the most explosive foreign-interference files in modern Canadian politics. And his answer, translated into plain English, is simple: I cannot share what I know. Which brings me to the chorus of liberal hecklers. In the House of Commons, Liberals have spent months mocking and scolding Poilievre for refusing to get the 'clearance', framing it as irresponsibility or cowardice rather than a dispute over how intelligence briefings actually function. On October 21, 2024 Liberal MP Sukh Dhaliwal ridiculed @PierrePoilievre in the chamber over his refusal to obtain the briefing tied to foreign interference investigations, mocking him as “the leader who refuses to get a security clearance” and taunting that he had effectively chosen to “prefer to be dumb.” On December 4, 2024 (44th Parliament, 1st Session, Sitting No. 382), Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz repeated the accusation during debate on foreign interference, arguing that all political leaders have a duty to take national security seriously, “including the Leader of the Opposition, who refuses to get a security clearance.” There are numerous instances of Liberal MPs and Ministers deriding Pierre in the House over the muzzling security clearance he refuses to accept. The message from the Liberal benches was relentless. - If Poilievre refused the clearance, he must be irresponsible. - If he questioned the briefing structure, he must be hiding something. Online, the same refrain gets shouted with extra emojis and all caps by the unhinged rabid leftist extremists. Laura Babcock has repeatedly posted jabs about Poilievre not having a security clearance. Dean Blundell has done the same, presenting the issue as proof the Conservative leader cannot be trusted with national security matters. The entire ecosystem, political and online, built a tidy little narrative around the idea that Poilievre’s refusal was reckless. And then Mark Carney walked into a press scrum and demonstrated exactly how the system works. A journalist asks a direct question about foreign interference. - The Prime Minister has the intelligence briefings. - The Prime Minister has the security clearance. - And the Prime Minister cannot answer the question. Which is precisely the outcome Poilievre warned about. So to this entire genre of commentator, here is the question. When Carney says, “There are aspects of those briefings that I can’t share in public,” what exactly do you want or expect Pierre to do with his briefing, other than what Carney just did? 🤔Do you want him to solemnly announce he cannot answer your questions and then ask for applause for being responsibly silent? 🤔Do you want him muzzled in public while insisting the muzzle is actually a megaphone? 🤔Do you want Opposition oversight that politely stops where the government’s comfort begins? Because that is what this security clearance debate has become in Liberal hands. Not accountability, but rather, Opposition containment. The funniest part is the timing. Carney’s line is not a Conservative talking point. It is the practical, lived reality of the system Liberals demanded Poilievre submit to. The moment the clearance becomes real, the constraint becomes real. And none of this means Canada should ignore #ForeignInterference. Quite the opposite. It means Canadians should stop pretending the Liberals are arguing in good faith when they use “get the clearance” as a political cudgel while their own leader demonstrates, right on cue, EXACTLY why the concern exists! Carney did not just dodge questions. He supplied the exhibit. Pierre was right about the consequence. And you just heard it from the guy you were told and gaslit into trusting. And now, please, by all means, continue lecturing the rest of us about transparency right after you finish explaining why the Prime Minister of Canada cannot answer questions about one of the most serious #sovereignty issues facing the country.🇨🇦 Might I suggest you take your moral compass in for repair, because there is something inherently broken in Canada's Liberal-verse when they can't see their own hypocritical moral failings yet cast wild accusations through taxpayer funded and subsidized Canadian legacy media megaphones in an attempt to smear their opposition with absurdly unhinged moral panic. I'm sure it's just pure coincidence... right?!?😉 Melanie in Saskatchewan #cdnpoli 👇🏻 buymeacoffee.com/melanieinsa… 👇🏻 open.substack.com/pub/melani… Sources • Press scrum questioning Prime Minister Mark Carney on India interference and the Nijjar assassination March 3, 2026 Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press • House of Commons Debates (Hansard) • October 21, 2024 44th Parliament, 1st Session Sitting No. 355 Statement by Liberal MP @sukhdhaliwal • December 4, 2024 44th Parliament, 1st Session Sitting No. 382 Statement by Liberal MP @JulieDzerowicz • Global News reporting on Poilievre’s explanation regarding security clearance briefings and speaking restrictions. • House of Commons Hansard ourcommons.ca/documentviewer…