Opinion
Two Press Conferences, Two Futures: Reality vs. Liberal Delusion

Poilievre lays out a real plan to fight fentanyl and secure Canada’s economy. Carney delivers empty slogans and Trudeau 2.0 talking points.
So let’s talk about two very different press conferences that happened today. One was from Pierre Poilievre, who laid out a serious, detailed plan to crack down on fentanyl traffickers, secure Canada’s borders, and put drug kingpins in prison for life. The other? Mark Carney, the Liberal Party’s unelected golden boy, who stood at a podium, threw out a bunch of vague, focus-grouped slogans, and then told Canadians—with a straight face—that he’s not a politician.
Hold on—HAHAHAHAHA. Let’s just take a second to appreciate how absurd that is.
Mark Carney—the man standing at a podium, announcing his candidacy to lead the Liberal Party, delivering pre-rehearsed political talking points, and desperately trying to sound relatable—is telling you he’s not a politician.
That’s like Justin Trudeau saying he’s not a virtue-signaler. It’s like Joe Biden saying he’s a great public speaker. It’s like CNN saying they just report the news. It’s so obviously untrue that you almost have to admire the sheer arrogance of saying it out loud.
But Carney’s dishonesty didn’t stop there. No, he went on to deliver a speech so full of contradictions, hypocrisy, and Liberal gaslighting that it deserves its own category at the Academy Awards.
Carney’s Fantasy vs. Poilievre’s Reality on the Fentanyl Crisis
Poilievre’s press conference today was dead serious—because the fentanyl crisis is dead serious. He laid out the numbers:
- 50,000 Canadians dead since 2016. More than all the soldiers we lost in World War II.
- A super lab in British Columbia capable of producing enough fentanyl to kill 95 million people.
- 99% of shipping containers coming into Canada go uninspected.
His response? Mandatory life sentences for fentanyl traffickers. 15-year minimums for those caught with smaller amounts. Military-backed border security. 2,000 new CBSA officers to stop fentanyl from coming in at the source.
Now let’s compare that to Carney’s response.
Oh wait—he didn’t have one.
Carney spent his entire press conference talking about “trade diversification” and “economic growth.” Not a single detailed plan for stopping the flow of fentanyl into this country, putting drug traffickers in prison, or protecting Canadian families.
Why? Because the Liberal Party doesn’t actually care about fentanyl. They only started pretending to care because Trump forced them to.
Poilievre called it out perfectly:
“If Donald Trump hadn’t threatened tariffs, Trudeau wouldn’t even be talking about fentanyl.”
And he’s right. Because if Trudeau, Carney, and the Liberals actually cared about fentanyl, they wouldn’t have eliminated mandatory minimums for traffickers with Bill C-5.
Carney’s Laughable “Trade Strategy” vs. Poilievre’s Economic Reality
Carney—who spent most of his career **as an unelected globalist banker—**wants you to believe he has a plan to fix Canada’s economy. His big idea?
“We need to diversify trade away from the U.S.”
Oh, brilliant! Canada should just pivot away from its largest trading partner—the country that buys 75% of our exports—and do business with… who exactly?
China? The same China that’s flooding our country with fentanyl and stealing our intellectual property?
That’s like saying, “I don’t like getting my paycheck from my current job, so I’ll just get paid by a different company!” That’s not how reality works, Mark.
But now Mark Carney wants to diversify trade away from the U.S.? Fascinating. And how exactly does he plan to do that?
Energy East? Oh yeah, you guys killed that. A pipeline that would have let us sell our own oil to our own refineries instead of importing from Saudi Arabia—but nope, too “dirty” for the Liberal climate cult.
Northern Gateway? Oh yeah, canceled that too. That would have gotten Alberta oil to the Pacific, letting us sell to Asia instead of relying on the Americans. But the Liberals shut it down before the first barrel could even roll.
How about LNG exports to Japan? Oh wait—Trudeau’s government said there was “no business case.” Meanwhile, Japan is signing massive deals with Qatar while Canada, sitting on one of the world’s largest gas reserves, does absolutely nothing. Brilliant strategy, Mark.
So what’s the plan here? Sell more maple syrup to Belgium? Hope the French suddenly develop a taste for Tim Hortons coffee? Maybe trade luxury tax credits for electric BMWs? Be serious.
This is the problem with guys like Carney—they live in a world of theoretical trade deals and imaginary supply chains, while the rest of us have to live with reality. And the reality is, Canada depends on the U.S. because Liberal policies have systematically destroyed every alternative.
But sure, Mark. Tell us more about your vision for trade while Canada’s biggest industries are locked out of the global market—because of people like you.
Meanwhile, Poilievre actually acknowledged reality.
“Trump sees weakness, and what does a real estate mogul from New York do when he spots weakness? He pounces.”
This isn’t just about trade. This is about Canada being so economically weak after eight years of Liberal mismanagement that we’re now at the mercy of Trump’s tariffs.
And what did Carney have to say about that? Nothing.
Carney’s Carbon Tax Flip-Flop
And here it is—Carbon Tax 2.0 from Trudeau 2.0.
Mark Carney, the guy who spent years preaching that carbon taxes were the single most powerful tool to fight climate change, is now standing at a podium, pretending he never said that.
“We should eliminate the consumer carbon tax and instead make large polluters pay.”
Oh really? Excuse me? Carney spent his entire career defending carbon taxes, telling struggling Canadians that their skyrocketing gas and heating bills were just part of the “climate transition.” And now, magically, he’s against them?
This isn’t leadership. This is pure, shameless political opportunism.
Let’s get something straight: Mark Carney doesn’t actually care about the carbon tax. What he does care about is winning an election. And right now, even Liberal voters hate the carbon tax. So suddenly, he’s got a new idea—carbon tax for thee, but not for me.
Because, of course, Carney himself never had to pay these taxes. The man made millions as a banker, then made even more at Brookfield Asset Management—a firm that just happens to be heavily invested in fossil fuels. Oh yeah, Carney loved talking about green energy, but when it came to his own paycheck? Fossil fuels were just fine.
This is the classic Liberal formula: They jack up your energy costs, kill your job, and call it a “transition” while making sure their wealthy buddies get exemptions.
Now contrast that with Pierre Poilievre’s response.
Axe the tax.
Yeah, no shit.
While Carney is rebranding the exact same Liberal scam, Poilievre is saying what every Canadian already knows: The carbon tax isn’t saving the planet. It’s just making life unaffordable.
Because here’s the truth: It was never about fighting climate change. It was always about taking your money. And Carney’s latest spin? It’s just the next version of the same scam.
Mark Carney: Trudeau 2.0, Just With a Better Suit
Here’s the bottom line: Poilievre laid out a real plan today—one that actually addresses the fentanyl crisis, border security, and Canada’s economic vulnerabilities.
Carney? He gave a meaningless, bureaucratic speech that could have been written by ChatGPT.
Poilievre talked about real consequences for fentanyl traffickers. Carney didn’t.
Poilievre called out the Liberals’ disastrous economic policies. Carney helped design them.
Poilievre acknowledged Canada’s dependence on the U.S. Carney pretended we could just trade with Europe instead.
And yet, the Liberal Party wants you to believe that Mark Carney is Canada’s next great leader.
Here’s the truth: Carney isn’t new. He isn’t different. He isn’t a “pragmatist.” He’s just Justin Trudeau in a better suit, with a fancier resume, and the exact same failed policies.
And if Canadians fall for this scam, we’ll get four more years of Trudeau-style incompetence—just with a British accent.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Business
Trump Reportedly Shuts Off Flow Of Taxpayer Dollars Into World Trade Organization

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Thomas English
The Trump administration has reportedly suspended financial contributions to the World Trade Organization (WTO) as of Thursday.
The decision comes as part of a broader shift by President Donald Trump to distance the U.S. from international institutions perceived to undermine American sovereignty or misallocate taxpayer dollars. U.S. funding for both 2024 and 2025 has been halted, amounting to roughly 11% of the WTO’s annual operating budget, with the organization’s total 2024 budget amounting to roughly $232 million, according to Reuters.
“Why is it that China, for decades, and with a population much bigger than ours, is paying a tiny fraction of [dollars] to The World Health Organization, The United Nations and, worst of all, The World Trade Organization, where they are considered a so-called ‘developing country’ and are therefore given massive advantages over The United States, and everyone else?” Trump wrote in May 2020.
The president has long criticized the WTO for what he sees as judicial overreach and systemic bias against the U.S. in trade disputes. Trump previously paralyzed the organization’s top appeals body in 2019 by blocking judicial appointments, rendering the WTO’s core dispute resolution mechanism largely inoperative.
But a major sticking point continues to be China’s continued classification as a “developing country” at the WTO — a designation that entitles Beijing to a host of special trade and financial privileges. Despite being the world’s second-largest economy, China receives extended compliance timelines, reduced dues and billions in World Bank loans usually reserved for poorer nations.
The Wilson Center, an international affairs-oriented think tank, previously slammed the status as an outdated loophole benefitting an economic superpower at the expense of developed democracies. The Trump administration echoed this criticism behind closed doors during WTO budget meetings in early March, according to Reuters.
The U.S. is reportedly not withdrawing from the WTO outright, but the funding freeze is likely to trigger diplomatic and economic groaning. WTO rules allow for punitive measures against non-paying member states, though the body’s weakened legal apparatus may limit enforcement capacity.
Trump has already withdrawn from the World Health Organization, slashed funds to the United Nations and signaled a potential exit from other global bodies he deems “unfair” to U.S. interests.
Energy
Energy, climate, and economics — A smarter path for Canada

By Resource Works senior fellow Jerome Gessaroli
Canada has set ambitious climate goals, aiming to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030, and to hit net-zero emissions by 2050.
Now a senior fellow at Resource Works, Jerome Gessaroli, argues that Canada is over-focusing internally on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, when we should “look at cooperating with developing countries to jointly reduce emissions.”
He continues: “And we do that in a way that helps ourselves. It helps meet our own goals. That’s through Article 6 of the Paris Accord, allowing countries to share emission reduction credits from jointly developed projects.”
Reduction on a global scale
Article 6, says Gessaroli, means this: “We can work towards meeting our own emission goals, and can help developing countries meet theirs. We can do it in a way that’s much more efficient. We get a lot more bang for our buck than if we are trying to just do it domestically on our own.”
The point is that, in the end, emissions are reduced on a global scale — as he stressed in a five-part series that he wrote for Resource Works last November.
And in a study for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (where he is a senior fellow) he wrote: “The benefits could be large. Canada could reduce emissions by 50 per cent more if it carried out methane reduction projects both internationally and domestically, rather than solely in Canada.”
But is Ottawa interested?
Gessaroli says the federal government expressed interest in Article 6 in 2019 — but has not moved since then.
“They barely looked at it. Since this requires government-to-government coordination, it needs Ottawa’s initiative. But there doesn’t seem to be too much interest, too much appetite in that.”
All Ottawa has said so far is: “Going forward, Canada will explore these and other similar options to strengthen international co-operation and generate incentives for further emission reductions.”
Gessaroli on Resource Works
Gessaroli has been working with Resource Works since he first spoke with our Stewart Muir, following a letter that Muir wrote in The Vancouver Sun in 2022: ‘Gas has key role to play in meeting 1.5C climate targets.’
Gessaroli saw in Resource Works advocacy for responsible resource development “for the people, the citizens of BC, in an environmentally responsible manner and in a manner that’s efficient, driven by the private sector.”
And: “Resource Works supports responsible resource development, not uncritical expansion. We have these resources. We should develop them, but in a way that benefits society, respects nature, respects the local peoples, and so that wide elements of society can benefit from that resource development.”
Gessaroli on electric vehicles
Gessaroli hit a shared interest with Resource Works in a 2024 paper for its Energy Futures Institute, critiquing BC’s plan to require that all new vehicles sold in the province must be electric zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035.
For one thing, he wrote, BC would need to spend $1.8 billion to provide electric charging points for the vehicles. And billions more would be required to provide expanded power generation and transmission systems.
“The Government of BC should adjust or rescind its mandated targets for new minimum zero-emission vehicle sales.”
And on ZEV subsidies
Stewart Muir and Barry Penner, chair of the Energy Futures Institute, wrote a guest column last October in Business in Vancouver. They cited Gessaroli’s paper above, and noted: “According to Gessaroli, meeting BC’s ZEV targets will require an additional 2,700 gigawatt hours of electricity by 2030, and 9,700 gigawatt hours by 2040—almost equal to the output of two Site C dams.”
Gessaroli has also looked at the subsidies BC offers (up to $4,000) to people who buy an electric vehicle.
“The subsidies do help. They do incentivize people to buy EVs. But it’s a very costly way to reduce carbon emissions, anywhere upwards of $600, $700, even $800 a tonne to eliminate one tonne of carbon.
“When you look at the social cost of carbon, the government uses a figure around $170 a tonne. That’s the damage done from every tonne of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. So we’re paying $800 to remove one tonne of carbon when that same tonne of carbon does damage of about $170. That doesn’t sound like a very cost-effective way of getting rid of carbon, does it?”
Gessaroli on Donald Trump’s policies
Gessaroli says tariffs on imports are not the only benefit that Donald Trump plans for U.S. industry that will hurt Canada.
“He also wants to reduce tax rates, 15% for US manufacturers, and allow full deductibility for equipment purchases. You reduce regulations and red tape on companies while lowering their tax rates. They’re already competitive to begin with. Well, they’re going to be even more competitive, more innovative.”
For Canada, he says: “Get rid of the government heavy hand of overtaxing and enforcing inefficient and ineffective regulations. Get rid of all of that. Encourage competition in the marketplace. And over time, we’d find Canadians can be quite innovative and quite competitive in our own right. And we can hold our own. We can be better off.
“And there’d be more tax revenues being generated by the government. With the tax revenue, you can build the roads, build the hospitals, improve the healthcare system, things like that.
“But without this type of vibrant economic type activity, you’re going to get the stagnation we’re seeing right now.”
About Jerome Gessaroli
Gessaroli leads the Sound Economic Policy Project at the B.C. Institute of Technology. He is the lead Canadian co-author of Financial Management: Theory and Practice, a widely used textbook. His writing has appeared in many Canadian newspapers.
Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, highlights Gessaroli’s impact: “Jerome brings a level of economic and policy analysis that cuts through the noise. His research doesn’t just challenge assumptions—it provides a roadmap for smarter, more effective climate and energy policies.
“Canada needs more thinkers like him, who focus on pragmatic solutions that benefit both the environment and the economy.”
Gessaroli and Karen, his wife of 34 years, live in Vancouver and enjoy cruising to unwind. In his downtime, Gessaroli reads about market ethics and political economy — which he calls his idea of relaxation.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Poilievre refuses to bash Trump via trick question, says it’s possible to work with him and be ‘firm’
-
Dr. Robert Malone2 days ago
WHO and G20 Exaggerate the Risk and Economic Impact of Outbreaks
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Poilievre to let working seniors keep more of their money
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Voters should remember Canada has other problems beyond Trump’s tariffs
-
COVID-191 day ago
17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Cover up of a Department of Energy Study Might Be The Biggest Stain On Biden Admin’s Legacy
-
Community1 day ago
Support local healthcare while winning amazing prizes!
-
International1 day ago
Vice President Vance, Second Lady to visit Greenland on Friday