Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

2025 Federal Election

Campaign 2025 : The Liberal Costed Platform – Taxpayer Funded Fiction

Published

8 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Carney is trying to redefine the deficit by splitting it into two categories: “operating” and “capital”—a little trick borrowed from UK public finance to confuse voters and dodge political accountability. It’s not something Canada has ever used in federal budget reporting, and there’s a reason for that: it’s misleading by design.

Mark Carney, the unelected banker-turned-savior of the Liberal Party, stood on a stage at Durham College on April 19 and did what professional economic grifters do best—he smiled politely, gestured at some numbers, and attempted to sell Canadians on a $130 billion illusion.

He called it a “costed platform.” What it really was, was a pitch deck for national decline—a warmed-over slab of recycled Trudeauism, backed by deficit delusion and framed as “bold leadership.”

And yes, the numbers are real. Terrifyingly real.

The Liberal platform promises $130 billion in new spending over four years, while running deficits of $62.3 billion this year, $59.9 billion next year, and still sitting at $48 billion in the red by 2028. To balance all of this out? A magical $28 billion in “unspecified cuts.” Not outlined. Not itemized. Just floated in the air like a promise from a door-to-door vacuum salesman.

Carney, in his perfectly rehearsed banker tone, assures us it’s not spending. No, it’s “investment.” Which is hilarious, because that’s exactly what Justin Trudeau said when he kicked off a decade of reckless spending, capital flight, and housing inflation. Carney has simply pulled off the Liberal magic trick of rebranding debt as growth.

But this isn’t just fiscal mismanagement. This is coordinated, high-level dishonesty.

Let’s be clear: Mark Carney is not new to any of this. He isn’t some white knight riding in to clean up Trudeau’s mess. He is the mess. He was Trudeau’s economic consigliere. He sat in the backrooms when they passed Bill C-69, which throttled Canada’s energy sector. He championed ESG, oversaw the implosion of GFANZ (his climate finance alliance), and helped drive $500 billion in investment out of this country.

Now he’s back—wearing a new title, making the same promises, using the same playbook. Only this time, he’s brought a spreadsheet.

In one breath, Carney says we need to “diversify trade.” In the next, he’s counting on $20 billion in one-time countertariff revenues to prop up his platform. In one paragraph, he says Canada will be “fiscally responsible.” In the next, he admits the deficit will nearly double this year. He claims he’ll spend 2% of GDP on defense—but not until 2029, because, of course, there’s no urgency when you’re protected by the American military umbrella you secretly resent.

And his housing plan? If you thought things couldn’t get worse than Justin Trudeau’s housing disaster, buckle up. Carney’s solution is modular housing—yes, government-subsidized, prefabricated micro-boxes dropped onto federally controlled land.

Mark Carney will never live in modular housing. His children will never live in modular housing. But for you, the taxpayer? That’s the future he envisions—managed housing, managed economy, managed speech, managed life.

He’s not here to lift Canadians up. He’s here to lock them down—into a permanent, bureaucratically engineered middle class, dependent on state subsidies and grateful for whatever dignity Ottawa hasn’t yet taxed away.

And when asked how he’ll find the $28 billion in cuts needed to make this plan remotely plausible, his answer was priceless:

“Technology, attrition, and a review of consultant contracts.”

Translation: “We don’t know.”

And here’s where the grift goes full throttle—the accounting scam.

Carney is trying to redefine the deficit by splitting it into two categories: “operating” and “capital”—a little trick borrowed from UK public finance to confuse voters and dodge political accountability. It’s not something Canada has ever used in federal budget reporting, and there’s a reason for that: it’s misleading by design.

Here’s how it works: Carney claims that by 2028, the government will run an “operating surplus.” Sounds responsible, right? Like the books are balanced?

Wrong.

Because even while he’s claiming an “operating surplus,” the federal government will still be running a $48 billion deficit overall. That’s real debt—borrowed money the country doesn’t have.

So how does he square the circle?

Simple: he relabels infrastructure and program spending as “capital investment”, pushes it off to the side, and tells you the main budget is in good shape.

But guess what?

You still owe the money.
The debt still grows.
And interest payments still stack up.

It’s like maxing out your credit card, then saying “no problem—I only overspent on long-term purchases, not day-to-day expenses.”

Try that line with your bank. Let me know how it goes.

This isn’t honest budgeting. It’s spreadsheet manipulation by a guy who knows how to massage the optics while the house burns down.

And let’s not forget who we’re talking about here.

This is the man who moved his financial headquarters to New York while lecturing Canadians about economic sovereignty.

This is the guy with a Cayman Islands tax haven, who built his fortune offshore and now wants to manage your budget while shielding his own.

This is the architect of GFANZ—the so-called climate finance alliance—that imploded under his leadership. The same alliance that saw JPMorgan, Citigroup, and the Big Six Canadian banks bail because Carney couldn’t keep the cartel together without running afoul of antitrust laws.

This is the same man mentioned in Marco Mendicino’s Emergencies Act texts—the man who said, Move the tanks on the protesters.

That’s right.

He wasn’t calling for dialogue. He wasn’t calling for democracy. He was calling for force—on peaceful Canadians exercising their rights. That’s who this is.

So let’s drop the fantasy.

Mark Carney isn’t here to save you.

2025 Federal Election

NDP Floor Crossers May Give Carney A Majority

Published on

Walk this way!  …singing, hey diddle diddle with the NDP in the middle…

Rumours are bouncing around that a number of NDP MPs are looking at potentially crossing the floor to join the Liberal Party of Canada and give Mark Carney the majority he is looking for. The final count for the Liberal Party was that they finished with 169 seats, a mere three seats short of the number needed to claim majority and not have to work with other parties to create a workable mandate.

From the NDP perspective, I sort of get it. After all, Singh lost in his own riding, the party no longer enjoys Official Party Status and all the accoutrements that come along with this (the biggest one being money), and the party is rumoured to be bankrupt. From an individual’s perspective, crossing the floor gives them four years of employment (beyond that may be more murky as many will say “I didn’t vote for that”), and if you are amongst the first to cross, your bargaining position (cabinet position) can enhance your political lot in life fairly materially. If this were to occur it will happen quickly as the law of diminishing returns happens exponentially faster should you be the fourth to cross the line (maybe the Lizzy will join the race!)

From the Liberal perspective, I’m not as convinced the benefits are as transparent, from a nation building perspective. Sure, you get the majority (and thus mandate) you wish to pursue, but you truly would be thumbing your nose at Canada when you know that many NDP votes metaphorically crossed the floor to vote during the election (likely without the foresight that it would result in the death of their party), and that the country is actually pretty evenly split between the Liberals and Conservatives. Language like “now is the time for Canada to unite” and “we need a strong mandate to make Canada strong, and now we have it” could be thrown around, but that can create real fractures should that occur.

Personally, I am hoping that Prime Minister Carney says no to any floor crossers, and works to bridge the divides that are significant within this country. There is no reason that Canada cannot be one of the greatest countries, other than getting in the way of ourselves. Now is the time for olive branches, not cactus areoles.

Thanks for reading William’s Substack!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Post election…the chips fell where they fell

Published on

William Lacey's avatar William Lacey

I put a lot of personal energy into this election, trying to understand why it was that Canadians so wholeheartedly endorsed Mark Carney as their new leader, despite the fact that it was the same party who caused irreparable economic harm to the economy, and he has a similar philosophical outlook to the core outlook of the party. I truly believe that we have moved to a phase in our electoral process where, until something breaks, left leaning ideology will trump the day (pun intended).

Coming out of this election I have three questions.

1. What of Pierre Poilievre? The question for Conservatives is whether the wolves feed on the carcass of Poilievre (in my opinion the worst enemy of a Conservative is a Conservative) and initiate the hunt for a new leader (if they do, I believe the future should be led by a woman – Melissa Lantsman or possibly Caroline Mulroney), or does Poilievre move to Alberta and run for a “safe” seat to get back into the House of Commons, change his tone, and show people he too can be Prime Ministerial? His concession speech gives clues to this.

2. What of Mark Carney? Maybe (hopefully) Carney will see the light and try to bring the nation together, as there is an obvious east-west split in the country in terms of politics. Time will tell, and minority governments need to be cautious. Will we have a Supply and Confidence 2.0 or will we see olive branches extended?

3. What of the House of Commons? As I have mentioned previously, there has been discussion that the House of Commons may not sit until after the summer break, meaning that the House of Commons really will not have conducted any business in almost a year by the time it reconveens. If indeed “we are in the worst crisis of our lives” as Prime Minister Carney campaigned on, then should we not have the House of Commons sit through the summer? After all, the summer break usually is for politicians to go back to their ridings and connect with their constituents, but if an election campaign doesn’t constitute connecting, what does?

Regardless, as the election is behind us, we now need to see what comes. I will try to be hopeful, but remain cautious. May Canada have better days ahead.

Thanks for reading William’s Substack!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Continue Reading

Trending

X