I spoke extensively with a woman who wished to remain anonymous as she is still employed. For the purposes of this story, we’ll call her “Becky.”

Becky started her career modestly enough. She got a job right after high school, with no major aspirations for university. She worked in retail, eventually moving up into lower management at various companies in Nova Scotia. Around 10 years ago, her career began to advance rapidly.

Becky acknowledges that company initiatives promoting diversity and women contributed to her rapid ascent. However, she also credits her management style of leading by example and her willingness to work long hours to ensure tasks are completed properly. In an industry where many take shortcuts, she chooses to do things the right way.

Becky and her family began moving frequently as her career progressed. Due to these moves and her long hours, her husband gave up his career in software development to support her and care for their small children.

Things were looking up for their family; Becky and her husband started thinking about building wealth and investments. Then, during a move to southern Ontario, something happened.

Becky shared financial information with me from that time, which I was able to confirm.

The biggest factor was that their housing costs tripled with this move. Becky was also just coming off maternity leave with their second child when they relocated. They faced additional housing issues: they sold their old home but couldn’t find and close on a new one for several months, leading to months of paying for AirBNBs. This, combined with a massive increase in the cost of living, created a perfect storm of financial challenges for Becky and her family.

I remember looking at the price of apple juice not long after we moved. I distinctly remembered the cheapest apple juice price being 10 cents/100ml. That same apple juice was now 17 cents / 100ml. This had only been a few months, I wondered how this was possible.

Becky admits they should have planned better. They knew expenses in southern Ontario would far exceed the raise she received for the move. The family fell heavily into debt, but Becky earns a salary plus a yearly performance bonus, which is usually substantial because she excels at her job. They struggled after maxing out their credit during her maternity leave and the move, but her bonus allowed them to start paying off their debt.

At various points, they discussed her husband returning to work. He applied for remote jobs—since they lived almost two hours from the nearest place that might hire software developers—but couldn’t find anything in the industry. They considered rearranging their children’s lives (with before/after-school programs and daycare for the youngest) so he could take a minimum-wage job, but they decided to tough it out instead.

Fast forward to today, and Becky’s most recent tax return shows over $250,000. They’ve moved out of southern Ontario and are now debt-free. They rent for about the same amount they paid for a mortgage in southern Ontario. However, Becky remains concerned.

We are very lucky to be in the position we are in. However, I can’t help shaking the feeling that things aren’t right. The money that I make in salary alone should be enough to easily support my family and I don’t feel that way. I feel like it’s enough to get by on but we still budget carefully, we save money where we can, etc. We made the decision for my husband to stay home to give our kids a better home life, that’s the main motivation I’ve always had for working so hard, it’s always been about them.

Becky’s current salary is $145,000 annually, more than what two adults earning average salaries might make combined. She takes home roughly $7,000 per month. Their budget includes:

• $3,000 on rent

• $1,000 on car payments

• $750 on insurance

• $800 on groceries

• $250 on gas

• $100 for internet

• $200 on cell phone plans and phones

• $50 for various subscriptions

• $225 for a storage unit (since their rental is much smaller than their previous homes)

This leaves them with about $750 per month for extras like eating out, kids’ activities such as swimming lessons, and clothing. When asked if they could cut costs further, Becky explained:

We moved here thinking that rent would be cheaper here, we saw lots of places listed at 2000, or even less per month. What we found out was that the rental market is extremely competitive with people offering landlords literal cash to accept them. So we ended up taking what we could get, and I actually think we got lucky. It’s in a very nice part of the city. I think people can judge our expenses if they want, yes we have two newer vehicles and two payments. But we researched and bought the literal cheapest vehicles that would suit our needs and unfortunately we live outside the bussing area for our oldest’s school so we kind of need two vehicles right now. Other then those two things I’m sure there’s much where we could save, we shopped around for insurance to get the cheapest rate, we look for deals on groceries. We really learned to live frugally back in southern Ontario and still do. Although we do buy the occasional pizza or McDonalds now. But we don’t even usually pay to go home to Nova Scotia so our children can see their grandparents because flights are just too expensive.

Becky says they’ll be fine, even if they take on some debt or dig into savings each month. Her yearly bonus—while not guaranteed—easily covers it. Her last bonus paid off their remaining debts and left money in the bank for their next move or a house. Becky, who has dual Canadian/UK citizenship, is now planning to relocate to the UK.

I think what we’ve gone through with our family really illustrates how far Canada has fallen. I know our family will be fine if we stay. We can start investing the majority of my bonuses. However, I found myself thinking about people who make less money than me and how they are making things work. That makes me think of my children as they grow up. I’ve looked at the job listings recently for both here and the UK and there are just so many good options in the UK. Here in Canada, not so much. I worry about my children as they grow older here and get ready to move out on their own. While the UK has a lot of the same issues Canada has, they seem to be less extreme. We did a budget up and converted the dollar amounts and at the end of the day living anywhere but London seemed to be much cheaper in the UK. Maybe due to the denseness a bit, I’m not sure.

And it’s not just that. Even at work, the economic issues here in Canada are obvious. There’s more pressure right now than ever before because the economy seems to be slipping into a recession. Profit margins are so slim and the company is doing everything they can to get every last dollar. It’s stressful. That’s part of what started this whole thing. I began wondering if it was time to move to a different company. That led me to see the huge difference in the job markets here versus the UK.

Becky plans to monitor the job market and move her family to the UK when the right opportunity arises. Her family is fortunate to have that option, unlike many Canadians.

Some basic cost of living analysis shows that the cost of living in the UK may be slightly higher as an average overall ($3200 vs 3000$ per month). However this of course varies greatly from region to region. The average monthly salarly in the UK covers 1.5 months of the average costs versus Canada’s 1.4 months.

The title of this article may evoke different interpretations depending on the reader. Some strongly believe that specific political parties or ideologies pose an existential danger to democracy itself. Others interpret it more literally, viewing it as a challenge to established democratic electoral processes. Additional perspectives exist as well. However, to truly determine whether democracy is under threat, we need a broader approach and a clear definition. For instance, what if the so-called “democratic” processes in place are not entirely democratic?

The Meaning of Democracy

The term democracy comes from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (power or rule), translating literally to “power to the people.” At its core, a democracy must preserve this principle by empowering individuals to make decisions. In modern societies, this is typically achieved through elected representatives. Citizens vote for officials who best reflect their views and interests.

This system, however, reveals immediate flaws. Many countries are increasingly adopting polarized two-party systems, with one party leaning left and the other right. But what happens when neither party aligns with an individual’s beliefs or priorities? While options like write-in candidates or smaller fringe parties often exist, there is growing social pressure to support one of the two dominant parties. Phrases such as “Don’t let your vote be a throw-away vote” are frequently used to discourage deviation from the mainstream, limiting genuine choice. A lack of choice makes it hard to have a realistically free election.

Free and Fair Elections

Another main tenant of democracy is free and fair elections. The latter, in particular, implies equal representation for all. Yet, disparities persist. For example, if one district has 10,000 voters and another has 20,000, but both elect a single representative, each vote in the smaller district effectively carries twice the weight of a vote in the larger one. Additionally, practices like gerrymandering — the manipulation of electoral boundaries to favor one party — undermine fairness. In places like the United States, this has been a well-documented issue, with district lines redrawn to secure political advantage. While mechanisms exist to address these inequities, many perceive them as insufficient or biased.

Perhaps the most critical issue is the ability of voters to make informed decisions. This requires unrestricted access to information, including diverse political perspectives. When voices are censored or suppressed—even those some might consider deceptive or divisive — it erodes the democratic process. Critics may argue that harmful rhetoric should be silenced, but the choice to engage with or dismiss such voices must rest with the individual voter. Political censorship, such as the banning of certain candidates or platforms, has occurred in various nations. Equally concerning is social stigmatization, where fear of losing relationships or facing backlash pressures people to conform to prevailing political norms.

We also see some people talking about election cheating. Many people dismiss these claims as conspiracy theories. However if we go back to the main base of what democracy is - power to the people - their opinion is not any more or less important then any one elses. If their perception is that cheating is ocurring that’s still a failing of the democractic system and something that needs to be addressed. It doesn’t matter how far-fetched the claims may be.

A Growing Threat?

These elements have all been getting worse, not better. Perhaps even worse is that as a people it is dividing us further and further. This is something that is transcending national boundaries. A win from the right in the US has helped inspire movements in Europe for example. We see many groups right and left wing parties and personalities supporting similarly aligned parties and personalities in other countries.

Something needs to change to bring the two sides together. Democracy needs to be preserved.

With these foundational elements of democracy — representation, fairness, and freedom of choice — facing significant challenges, it’s reasonable to conclude that democratic systems, particularly in many Western nations, are under strain. As political polarization deepens, these threats are likely to intensify. The need for substantial reform in electoral processes across democratic countries is becoming ever more apparent if the principle of “power to the people” is to be upheld.

Men have been going through a lot lately. By "lately," we’re not talking about this past week, month, or even year. Over the last decade or two, everything a man may have believed he should be has been turned on its head several times over.

“Be a man” was a term once offered to males struggling with challenges—whether it was a difficult problem at school, a wound (emotional or physical), or just surviving in life. It was a message that men needed to endure, rise above, and meet challenges head on. The consequence of failing was being considered “less of a man.”

So, men did as they were told. They controlled their emotions, hid their pain, and rose to the occasion when they could. Sometime in the last 20 years or so, the message started to emerge that this was, in fact, unhealthy. Men needed to get in touch with their emotions, be vulnerable, and essentially do a full 180. As perceptions changed about what a man should be, their roles shifted in many other aspects of life, from dating to the professional world.

This led to the “Me Too” movement. There were—and still are—horrific cases that came to light because of it, and it’s good that they did so we could learn from them. This redefined what was acceptable and what wasn’t from men with respect to opposite sex interactions.

We are now coming full circle, with calls for more masculinity. This coincides with a rise in right-wing politics and a dismissal of feminism by some women. The Tate brothers have emerged as evangelicals of the masculinity movement, preaching ways to increase testosterone and how to win at life (while making a good amount of money selling their ideas along the way).

It’s tempting to call these fringe movements. However, with the recent election victory of Donald Trump, who continues to push for traditional values which lends legitimacy to it. This makes it hard to label them as a fringe movement. More and more people seem to be embracing this ideal. So, what does this mean for men?

Be who you want to be.

Every man has to figure this out for himself—whether that means embracing the previous version of masculinity or the new, emerging one. It’s up to you. However, this article will focus more on men who have felt caged, cowed, and stifled in recent years—those who want to embrace this renewed acceptance.

At the beginning of this article, some traits were mentioned that “be a man” implied. None of these traits are bad on their own. Embracing challenges, rising above, and controlling your emotions can all be positive. Taking it further, being a protector, a provider, and striving for greatness are also valuable. But how can we embrace these without the downsides that come with them?

Introspection is key. The negative aspects of these motivations—such as struggling with failure, suppressing emotions, or not being as great as you’d like—need attention. We know a lot more about these issues now than we did back then. There are many techniques to mitigate them; find what works for you. We cannot fall back into old patterns where failure might lead to taking frustrations out on others.

This brings up the next point: today’s masculinity must be a shining beacon of good. Protect the weak and vulnerable. Stand up for what is right. This can be done every day—volunteer or help someone in need. There is nothing more traditionally heroic than helping another person.

This also means controlling your vices. Identify the root causes of your vices and address them. Things like casual sex, pornography, drugs, and alcohol can elicit illusions of greatness, but they are, in fact, the opposite.

Being physically strong can translate into mental strength. The Tate brothers have this part right, at least. Working out is essential, especially if you’re not naturally active in your job or hobbies. You cannot be mentally strong if you’re overweight and unhealthy, sitting at a computer all day.

So, if we want a place for more traditional masculinity in today’s world—and if we want this movement to continue and thrive—we need to be cognizant of what we’re doing and why. We shouldn’t embrace this just to be dominant and in charge again; we should do it to be better and to make our world better.

If you looked through online posts for a reality TV series and posts about politics in the West (whether Canada or America), they actually wouldn’t seem all that dissimilar. People share their opinions about the characters, what they’ve done or said, and whether they believe that’s right or wrong. They’ll defend their favorites and criticize the ones they don’t like.

Let’s be honest. The average person doesn’t really know even the tiniest amount about how countries actually work—the laws and processes involved, the reasons for one decision or another. Things like national economies and global politics are enormously complex subjects that take years of study to understand completely. However, the average citizen still has to make a decision on whom they believe will make the best decisions in these matters for their country—who can balance all the different issues that face the country for the best.

People running for office, of course, face a complex task themselves. They need votes to win. They have to find a way to appeal to the public. The general public may believe that something is the biggest issue in the country, while the candidate may understand that there are other issues. However, they also understand that trying to convince all these people of the reality is going to be an extremely hard, if not impossible, task. Another scenario is that the candidate themselves may not even understand the full implications of everything.

This is nothing new. Politicians have always had to balance how to get their point across of what they perceive as “right” with actually getting votes. The problem right now is that overly dramatic, divisive politics is what is getting votes.

This over-the-top drama is something that Donald Trump seems to have pioneered, but it appears to be spreading in the political sphere. And this should come as no surprise, as President Trump himself once had his own reality TV show. People have responded to it the same way they respond to characters in a reality TV show. It generates views, clicks, and, most importantly, votes. It also, unfortunately, divides in the same way reality TV divides viewers.

So, how do we stop the drama and make sure we select the right people for the job? The answer is not some kind of exam to be given the right to vote—or to allow experts to select candidates. If history has taught us anything, it’s that consolidating power in a few leads to corruption in nearly every instance. The power must always remain with the people.

I believe the answer lies in campaign reform. A structured, standardized campaign format might help. For example, candidates might be required to post their platform using a standardized template that allows voters to easily see and understand the policies involved, sharing references for more information on specific issues if voters wish to see it. Mandated question periods at specific intervals, etc. This is a novel idea; however, it would likely depend on both sides agreeing on the format.

The voting public must take some of the responsibility here as well. This is not a reality show or a popularity contest. Voters should focus on the issues at hand and take some responsibility to educate themselves on the issues facing their country. The blame for the rise in dramatic, divisive politics lies primarily with the voter. Hours upon hours in front of the TV have made us receptive to this, which has encouraged more of it from politicians.

We have to always remember that we’re all human. For the most part, we are all trying our best. That person who seems selfish may have had a very different experience than you and probably doesn’t see the issues from exactly the same perspective as you do. Talk to each other. Be open-minded. Make your country better—not worse.

They get labeled as “far-right” by pundits and analysts. Parties like the People's Party of Canada, Reform in the UK, Alternative für Deutschland (Germany), and National Rally in France, to name a few. They all share a firmer belief in right-wing political ideology and have all enjoyed a surge of success in recent elections. So, one might wonder if perhaps Canada’s PPC might be next.

What is the far-right?

Calling them far-right is technically correct, as they tend to be a bit more right than the typical centrist conservative parties. When these labels are applied, however, they’re probably meant to elicit comparisons to Nazi Germany or Mussolini. As usual, the truth is actually somewhere in the middle.

We could do a comparison of these parties to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, but instead, let’s look at a slightly less known example: The British Union of Fascists (BUF). The party was created in England around the same time as the Nazi Party and was later banned. Without going into too much detail, key components of their platform where that they were ultra-nationalists, opposed to immigration, and supported state-controlled corporatism, authoritarianism, and social conservatism (we’ll ignore anti-Semitism for the purposes of this discussion).

Sounds similar to our current “far-right” parties, doesn’t it? This is where the comparisons come from. While they may share some similarities in beliefs, their methodology is vastly different. The BUF had a paramilitary wing, the Blackshirts, inspired by similar groups in Nazi Germany and Italy at the time. They believed that their cause was paramount and worth sacrificing the rights of the people to achieve their goals. They would use violence and intimidation to ensure success. This contrasts greatly with parties like the PPC, who advocate for personal liberties and freedoms.

In essence, a truly “far-right” party wouldn’t be able to function within the law of any present democratic nation.

The PPC and politics in Canada

Canada currently finds itself in a very divided state. Our neighbors to the south haven’t been very helpful, especially with their threats of annexation and the economic pressure they are applying. The people of Canada are struggling as well, and more and more people seem to be taking notice as their own situations worsen.

The incumbent Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) seems to understand this and has pivoted greatly during their campaign, attempting to come back closer to the center. They’ve been adopting more traditionally right-wing policies, so much so that some analysts seem to believe that, from a policy perspective, they’re virtually indistinguishable from their conservative counterparts.

The Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), the center-right party in Canada, seems to be in shambles according to the polls. They’ve gone from leading by double digits in the polls to trailing by double digits. Whatever the reason, polls have Canadians shedding support for the Conservatives in droves.

So, does this help the PPC? Maybe. It’s certainly possible that conservative supporters are shifting from the CPC to the PPC. But a more realistic possibility is support from the new voters that this election is likely to bring in—people who previously weren't greatly affected by who was in government but are now experiencing some degree of hardship. The people who are noticing now that Trump and the U.S. don’t seem quite as friendly as before. The people noticing that their neighborhood isn’t quite as safe as it used to be.

Canada has never been as far off from the status quo as it is now. If the mainstream parties continue to offer status-quo solutions, maybe voters will decide to support a different kind of party—like the PPC.

President Trump continues to apply economic pressure to Canada through the use of tariffs. Canada may finally be starting to feel some of that pressure, as the March job report was not great.

33,000 jobs were lost in March, which marks Canada's highest job loss since January of 2022 during the pandemic. January 2022 was when Canada imposed stricter public health measures due to the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19. Most months since that time, Canada has experienced job gains, and in the few months where there have been losses, they've been very minor.

The result has increased unemployment to 6.7%, which is closing in on the two-year high of 6.9%.

Canada's auto industry has been particularly hard hit by the tariff situation, as many auto parts travel back and forth across the border several times before being assembled into a completed automobile. After President Trump's initial round of tariffs affecting the auto industry, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced reciprocal tariffs on American automobiles. Prime Minister Carney also pledged a fully Canadian auto manufacturing line from start to finish as part of his campaign for the upcoming election.

Other Canadian industries that have been hard hit by tariffs are the aluminum and steel industries, as well as canola farmers. Notably, canola farmers are experiencing issues due to tariffs from China in a separate trade issue.

Canadian exports to the United States account for over 75% of all exports and around 20% of Canada's GDP. President Trump's foreign policy so far points to a desire to decrease American dependence on foreign imports. It remains to be seen whether that will mean Canada will face more tariffs or other economic pressures. But it very likely means a decrease in exports from Canada to the U.S.

Canada is only just beginning to feel the impact of the tariffs. The tariffs will decrease demand for Canadian imported goods in the U.S., which will impact Canadian industries that supply those exports to the U.S. Notably, Canadian oil products only have a 10% tariff applied to them. Oil products account for about 30% of Canadian exports to the U.S. An increased tariff and decreased demand for Canadian oil in the U.S. would have major economic repercussions for the country.

A bid led by Oracle and involving other U.S. investors, such as the U.S. venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, seemed set to take over the company. President Trump met today to discuss the potential sale, although details of the meeting are not yet available. However, an unexpected development emerged: a late bid from Amazon has now come into play.

The short video platform has come under fire over the past year due to its Chinese ties. The company ByteDance, operating out of China, is bound by Chinese law. In China, there is a law requiring companies to submit data to the government upon request. This has raised concerns among other nations, who view it as a security risk.

The U.S. government initially proposed a ban on April 23, 2024. This ban was to be implemented due to Congress passing the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. It allowed the company 270 days to divest. That 270-day period elapsed before President Trump extended it to the current April 5th deadline.

The two primary reasons politicians advocated for a ban in the U.S. are:

1. Security concerns regarding the Chinese government's legal ability to access data.

2. Concerns about election interference, specifically that the Chinese government could manipulate the algorithm to promote certain narratives and influence voters.

There is no evidence that any of these things are happening or would happen. However, the law in China does indeed grant the government access to data upon request.

The U.S. government is playing a role similar to that of an investment bank in this sale, with Vice President J.D. Vance overseeing the auction. It was previously reported that the government was in touch with four unnamed entities regarding the sale before Amazon threw its hat in the ring.

If successful, acquiring TikTok would further increase Amazon’s dominance in the tech industry. TikTok could integrate seamlessly into Amazon’s e-commerce business, driving sales. More importantly, it would provide the company with access to data on consumer discussions and interests. This would help Amazon in marketing. Along those lines, there could be antitrust issues with one company commanding so much of the market, which may explain the company's perceived hesitancy in placing a bid.

Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to get into the home-building business. He intends to build houses at a speed and scale we haven’t seen before. This will be accomplished through a new “lean” government organization that will act as a developer, catalyze a new housing industry, and provide financing for home builders. He said the organization, which he referred to as “Build Canada Homes,” will work with industry to build housing at scale and use publicly owned lands to do so.

He says that prefabricated and modular housing will play a big role, claiming they can be built 50% faster, up to 20% cheaper, and with 20% fewer emissions than traditional building methods. He claims the $35 billion will be used to build 500,000 new homes.

Too good to be true?

Let’s keep in mind the federal government’s track record on building homes—it isn’t great. The Trudeau government implemented the National Housing Strategy (NHS) in 2017, a 10-year, $115 billion plan aimed at funding and supporting various stakeholders rather than direct government construction. However, despite these efforts, only 245,120 homes were built in 2024—a decline from the 271,198 built in 2021 during the pandemic. Many attribute this to delays in planning and permits, as well as high interest rates, all of which have contributed to investor hesitancy.

Experts estimate Canada needs between 3.5 and 5.8 million homes by 2030.

Carney is not Trudeau, and Canada getting directly involved in the building process marks a departure from the NHS. Interest rates have been declining, but it remains to be seen how Carney will avoid planning delays.

Is social housing the answer?

Canada already has public housing, of course—housing owned by provincial or municipal governments. Low-income individuals can apply and, in some cases, receive government-subsidized housing. This would be a new area for the federal government to enter, though not entirely unprecedented. The Canadian Forces Housing Agency, for example, is a federal program that provides housing for military personnel and their families.

So, if the federal government is going to get into the business of building houses, why not also get into the business of renting them out? This could help keep rental costs low if private housing has to compete with (presumably) more fairly priced, government-owned public housing.

The problem, as many on the right will be quick to point out, is that Canada has a disturbing trend of sliding further and further into socialism—some might even say bordering on communism. At some point, we may wake up with the government telling us what kind of house is best for our families and expecting us to simply accept it.

So, will it be different this time?

Unfortunately, we have no real way of knowing for sure. This approach is different from previous programs. The reality is that the last time the government was directly involved in building housing (in the 1990s), it did pretty well. The victory houses of the 50s post World War II were also very successful.

However, $35 billion per year exceeds the NHS's available budget. If this amount were directly applied to building houses, it would only cover approximately 70,000 homes at an estimated cost of $500,000 per house. We don't have all the details of the program yet, but it's expected that the funds will be used for financing, with most—if not all—of the money being recouped through the sale of the completed houses. There may also be a system in place to absorb some losses to keep prices affordable for consumers.

Minority House Leader Hakeem Jefferies recently appeared in a video clip discussing how a state supreme court election in Wisconsin could potentially swing the House in favor of the Democrats. Currently, Wisconsin has 6 Republican seats and 2 Democrat seats.

Gerrymandering is the act of redrawing electoral boundaries to favor one party. It is named after Elbridge Gerry, a politician who approved a district that resembled a salamander, hence the term "gerrymander."

Republicans are already concerned about the statement regarding gerrymandering. However, Wisconsin’s congressional districts were redrawn in 2022 by a Republican legislature. They were not updated in 2024, unlike other districts, because the state supreme court declined to hear a Democratic-backed lawsuit seeking to redraw them. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project gives the districts a fairness rating of F.

As you may be aware, Republicans currently control the presidency, Senate, and House. In the House, the majority is slim: 218 Republicans to 213 Democrats, with 4 vacant seats (2 Republican, 2 Democrat). If the Democrats can swing a few seats, it could be significant, as the Republicans might lose their majority.

How does a state supreme court justice affect gerrymandering

As mentioned earlier, the state supreme court is responsible for addressing issues related to electoral boundaries. In 2022, when it rejected a review of the boundaries, there were 4 conservative-leaning justices and 3 liberal-leaning ones. In 2023, liberal candidate Janet Claire Protasiewicz defeated conservative Daniel Kelly, ending a 15-year conservative majority. With liberal justice Ann Walsh Bradley set to retire, the election of a conservative justice could restore a conservative majority.

The Democrats could then push for a review, which liberal-leaning justices might grant. According to Jefferies, this could lead to “fairer” boundaries, which liberal-leaning justices are more likely to support, even if they favor the Democrats.

What’s keeping them from shifting the favor to the democrats?

Absolutely nothing. The state supreme court is the final authority here. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state supreme courts are wholly responsible for interpreting their state constitutions, placing this issue outside federal jurisdiction. There is one notable exception to this rule, it is when race is involved. Federal supreme court can get involved if racially motivated gerrymandering (as there is a federal law around racial gerrymandering) is occurring.

If we assume the current maps are biased in favor of the Republicans, and the state supreme court becomes biased toward the Democrats, nothing prevents them from approving a new map proposed by the legislature that favors the Democrats.

How to fix it

There have been many proposals for fixing gerrymandering. Throughout the process, some bias is inevitably introduced, whether intentional or not.

Some states use independent commissions of non-partisan groups. However, even individuals not involved in politics tend to have some bias. The federal government could pass legislation setting specific rules for electoral districts.

An interesting idea is to develop an algorithm to draw the boundaries—a set of defined rules that a computer follows precisely, eliminating bias.

Gerrymandering has undoubtedly affected every election since its inception with Elbridge Gerry and the salamander-shaped district. Whether its impact has been sufficient to alter results is debatable, but it’s certainly plausible. It will remain an issue until effective solutions are implemented.

In an interesting and somewhat amusing turn of events, users who were attempting to pirate versions of Microsoft’s Windows operating system were being assisted by the company's own tools.

Copilot, Microsoft’s AI app, was obviously trained very well on the Windows operating system. When users asked certain questions, it would offer suggestions like using unauthorized product keys or tweaking system settings to activate Windows without a valid license. Users also reported having it generate scripts to produce key generators or automation scripts to help them continue without activating Windows.

Of course, much of this information is available on the internet if one were to search and read enough. However, AI's ability to quickly scrape information from the net and summarize for the user makes this process significantly easier.

This raises the question of whether Microsoft should even be charging licensing fees for Windows, but that’s a subject for another article.

Copilot now rejects any queries about workarounds, explaining that using Windows without licensing is illegal. Effectively, Microsoft has censored its AI by restricting certain responses. This isn’t the first time this has come up, and it raises some important questions about censorship in AI.

If you were to ask Google’s AI Gemini about something political, you might get an answer like the one below:

There were issues with AI providing information for certain political topics and not others, as well as issues related to race, gender, etc., leading to accusations that AI developers were pushing specific agendas and censoring others. Elon Musk has also been critical of this and developed xAI, which he claims combats this and provides uncensored information.

There are very important considerations to be made. Should AI be able to teach someone to make a bomb? Plan a robbery? But on the flip side, what if a writer wants to use AI to brainstorm plausible ideas for a robbery in their story?

More and more of these questions are coming up as AI technology evolves, and there isn’t a clear-cut answer.

Island emerged out of nothing in 2022 with its security-oriented enterprise browser.

The company was founded in 2020 by cybersecurity veterans Mike Fey and Dan Amiga. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, it also boasts offices in Tel Aviv and London. Island’s mission is to provide a secure, productivity-enhancing browser for enterprises, addressing the gaps left by consumer-focused browsers. The browser is designed to handle complex IT and security requirements for businesses.

The Island Enterprise Browser is built on the Chromium engine, offering a familiar user experience while embedding enterprise-grade security and governance features. Key capabilities include:

• Security and Control: Zero Trust by design, with features like malware blocking, phishing protection, and last-mile controls for data (e.g., copy, paste, download restrictions).

• Visibility: Logging browser behavior, capturing screenshots, and integrating with Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) platforms for enterprise-wide visibility.

• Productivity: Tools like ad blockers, customizable homepages, and support for Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies, ensuring a seamless user experience.

• Universal Application Access Control: Ensures secure access to web applications, limiting unauthorized usage.

While this area isn’t oversaturated with products, Microsoft has long dominated it, first with Internet Explorer and now with Edge. Additionally, there are enterprise versions of both Edge and Chrome, the company Surf Security also offers a full browser solution.

The tech industry, particularly the cybersecurity sector, is witnessing significant growth, with startups like Island gaining prominence. The company announced on its website on March 26, 2025, that it secured $250 million in Series E funding at a $4.8 billion valuation. This rapid increase from its initial $1.3 billion valuation shows that investors have confidence in the product and company.

It is interesting that Mark Carney chose to travel to France and the UK during his first days as Prime Minister of Canada. U.S. President Donald Trump recently announced that “if the EU works with Canada to economically harm the USA, large-scale tariffs, far larger than currently planned, will be placed on both.” This announcement is reshaping the Western political landscape.

Trump is reshaping the geopolitical world

Carney declared that Canada’s relationship with the United States is over in response to the latest tariffs and threats from President Trump. While Canada may have been hit hardest by Trump’s new vision for America, they seem to have come to the realization that Trump has fundamentally changed the relationship between the two nations. Canada isn’t alone in this realization. Mexico, the EU, and the UK have all been targeted and are gradually recognizing that America is no longer the friendly state it once was.

Trump’s foreign policies are fostering an increasingly isolationist America. This is creating a significant rift in the Western world, and Trump appears more interested in doing business with Russia than engaging with America’s North American or European partners.

Countries like Australia, Japan, and India are also wary of tariffs. However, they benefit from their proximity to China. Whether or not Trump wants to target these countries, he will need them in any potential conflict with China, which provides them with a measure of safety.

Canada is no different

The countries Trump has targeted are not significantly different from Canada. Many larger developed nations have GDPs in the 2–4 trillion dollar (USD) range, which pales in comparison to America’s 30+ trillion dollar GDP. They have no realistic way to retaliate, and neither does Canada. Mexico is quietly acquiescing to Trump’s demands while attempting to negotiate better terms. Mexican officials are hoping that conditions will normalize once Trump leaves office.

Canada, however, is approaching an election. Trump has also threatened Canada’s sovereignty, boosting national pride and providing excellent election campaign material. As a result, Canadian politicians are mounting a stronger resistance. They may eventually have to concede and work with Trump; the question remains how much damage will occur before that happens.

The European Connection

As noted, most individual countries have small economies compared to the U.S., which makes it challenging to oppose the U.S. However, the European Union can present a unified front with the combined economic power and trade expertise to counter the U.S. economically.

They don’t have to yield to Trump’s threats—and they haven’t. Things such as Brussels pledge to increase defense spending are indicative of Europe’s resolve to stand against Trump and America. The key takeaway is that as America and Europe grow increasingly divided, repairing that rift will take longer—if it’s possible at all. While other nations can’t afford to lose ties with the world’s largest economy, the EU can.

Putting the pieces together

This brings us back to the start: Trump’s threat and Carney’s visit to France and the UK as his first act as Prime Minister. It seems likely that there is more to this visit than meets the eye.

Trump likely didn’t issue the threat without basis. He may have received intelligence suggesting that the EU was collaborating with Canada on a plan. If such a plan exists, it probably involves the UK and possibly other nations. This would explain Carney’s activities in Europe. He clearly has political connections in those countries.

If Canada secures support from the UK and the EU to challenge the U.S., we’re looking at a combined GDP of approximately $26 trillion compared to America’s $30 trillion. If this agreement is in progress, we might hear an announcement from Carney before the election ends. Such an agreement could secure his victory.

Shortly after this posting President Trump posted the following on truth social.

It remains to be seen what implications this could have if any. Some speculate this could be Trump trying to influence the election by suggesting Carney is going to appease the American President. Other commended Carney’s pollical prowess noting the use of “Prime Minister” by Trump (who notably referred to former PM Trudeau as “Governor”). Another possibility is that Trump doesn’t want to get into a trade war with a united EU/UK/Canada and is now willing to negotiate more with Canada.

News broke on March 24 that CSIS had evidence of foreign interference in the Conservative Party leadership race in 2022. This isn’t exactly new information, as people have been alluding to it—if not outright saying it—for a while now. However, it is significant that this information is coming from CSIS. They also mentioned that they were unable to brief Poilievre because he still lacks the security clearance required to receive such briefings.

What does this practically mean?

Essentially, they’re alleging that members of the Indian government or intelligence community organized support in Canada from South Asian members of the community for Poilievre. Practically, that could involve anything from registering with the Conservative Party to vote in the leadership race, to putting up signs, to posting support on social media. It’s unknown exactly what actions were taken.

What is clear is that there is no known evidence right now suggesting that Poilievre or any of his inner circle were complicit in this interference. Additionally, there is no current evidence to support the idea that the interference would have changed the result of the leadership race.

So, what’s the big deal?

The significant issue here is that CSIS could not brief Poilievre on the evidence due to his lack of security clearance. While there’s no evidence against Poilievre himself, there may be evidence implicating someone in his party, and he has no idea. If elected as Prime Minister, he could unknowingly appoint this person to a cabinet position.

What could potentially be done?

Unfortunately, there are limited actions that can be taken. CSIS can’t really take any action on their own. They can brief the Prime Minister and inform the RCMP. However, in many cases, evidence obtained by CSIS is not admissible in courts, so it would be up to the RCMP to conduct an investigation and gather their own evidence.

Even the Prime Minister can’t do much. If CSIS briefs the Prime Minister with evidence that Poilievre knowingly colluded with foreign officials to affect the leadership race, only the Conservative Party’s internal policies can remove Poilievre from his leadership position. Beyond that, the Prime Minister could call for a public inquiry, but he cannot overturn the results, and the RCMP would need to file criminal charges.

This heightens concerns about Poilievre’s refusal to obtain security clearance, as he is the primary individual who could act swiftly on such matters. It is important to note that Poilievre’s chief of staff does have clearance and has seen the briefings. However, it remains to be seen how much that may help.

The timing is suspicious.

CSIS did not release this information until after an election was announced. This information is damaging to Poilievre and his campaign—he can dismiss it all he wants, but it’s almost certainly affecting his polling. CSIS may have released this information now due to pressure from the Liberal Party. It’s also possible that they’ve exhausted all other means and, with an election now announced, felt it important enough to make it public.

Three things can all be true:

1. The foreign interference in the Conservative Party race isn’t a big deal, as it didn’t affect the outcome, and Poilievre and his inner circle very likely didn’t know about it.

2. The timing is suspicious.

3. Poilievre must obtain his security clearance; his lack of it is highly problematic.

Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, started out with a sizable lead in the polls against the Liberal Party—a double-digit lead, in fact. This stemmed largely from the unfavourability of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Since Trudeau resigned and Mark Carney won the Liberal Party leadership race, things have changed significantly in the polls. Most polls currently have Carney’s Liberal Party ahead of Poilievre’s Conservatives.

Poilievre has been compared to Trump, and while there are some similarities, Trump tends to be a bit more extreme in his policies than Poilievre (see this comparison piece for more information).

• Economic/Fiscal

  • Repeal Carbon Tax

  • 15% tax cut to the lowest federal tax bracket (dropping it from 15% to 12.75%)

  • Implement pay-as-you-go law capping federal spending at budgeted amounts and requiring savings for new spending

  • Increase natural resource production via pre-approved areas and reduced regulation

• Housing

  • Mandate a 15% increase in housing construction

  • $10,000 per new home

  • Convert federal buildings to housing

• Immigration

  • Speed up licensing of foreign trained professionals

  • Link immigration levels to housing, healthcare, and infrastructure capacity

  • More study loans for training

• Freedom of Expression

  • Withhold funding to non-compliant schools

  • Appoint “free speech” guardian

• Monetary

  • Subject the Bank of Canada to audits by the Auditor General

  • Ban proposed digital currency

  • Facilitate the use of cryptocurrencies

• Crime

  • Crack down on crime

  • Keep repeat offenders behind bars

  • Support "Freedom Convoy" protesters

• Environment

  • Build pipelines

  • Rely on technology for emissions (details unclear)

• Social/Cultural

  • Historical opposition to marriage equality

  • Controversial Indigenous statements (current stance unclear)

  • Opposes transgender inclusion in women's spaces and sports.

While Poilievre has been campaigning for some time, Mark Carney is new to the Canadian political scene and to politics in general. He has already made significant policy announcements as the new Liberal leader and has moved quickly. He has a strong economic background, having served as governor of the Bank of Canada and later as governor of the Bank of England.

• Economic

  • Middle-class tax cut (1% off lowest income tax bracket)

  • Balanced operational budget, but separate operational vs investments

  • AI integration to make government quicker and more efficient

  • Pledged to have the fastest growing economy in the G7

• Housing

  • Accelerate housing construction

  • Densification

  • Eliminate unit/parking maximums

  • GST removal for first-time buyers

• Immigration

  • Temporary cap to pre-pandemic levels

  • Integrate 4M temporary residents

  • Align with housing/healthcare capacity

• Foreign Policy

  • New partnerships (Europe, Asia, etc.)

  • Critical minerals supplier

  • Food security

  • Stand against U.S. tariffs

• Military/Defense

  • Invest in Made-in-Canada defense

  • Meet 2% NATO target

  • Modernize NORAD

  • Arctic infrastructure

  • Border security

• Environment

  • Remove consumer carbon tax

  • Green incentives

  • Tax industrial emitters (compensating for lack of consumer carbon tax)

  • Clean energy superpower

  • Carbon border-adjustment

• Social/Healthcare

  • Improve doctor access

  • Lower wait times

  • Tackle homelessness/drug crisis

  • Provide reskilling programs for technological advancements

  • Indigenous reconciliation

It is mainly people who favor left-wing politics who make these comparisons. They hate what Trump is doing in the United States. They’re right to be concerned; Trump is moving at speeds that are hard to keep up with (despite his many golf trips back to Florida on the weekends). Using archaic laws to deport immigrants without due process, making massive cuts to foreign aid and government spending, and defying court orders are just a few concerning actions.

So, should Canada be concerned with Poilievre acting similarly?

The most obvious thing to look at is the language they both use. They both tend to use a lot of anti-establishment rhetoric. It could be argued that Poilievre was inspired by Trump when he adopted this approach. However, it seems more likely that this is a result of the current political climate. Both Trump and Poilievre were—or are—attempting to defeat an incumbent government, so it makes sense that they would frame their campaigns in this way.

Trump has taken a much harder stance on immigration than Poilievre, and the difference is stark. Poilievre has committed to limiting immigration based on housing and healthcare and ensuring that immigration addresses gaps in the job market. However, the current government’s stance is also to limit immigration, bringing temporary residence down to 5% by 2026. This process actually began under Trudeau. Contrast this with Trump’s plan for the mass deportation of all immigrants who entered illegally, including those seeking asylum, and much stricter border policies.

There’s also the issue of Canadian sovereignty. Trump has repeatedly disrespected Canada’s sovereignty, not to mention that of other countries. Poilievre, meanwhile, has done nothing of the sort and has been vocal about protecting Canada from President Trump’s repeated threats. It seems unlikely he would do a complete 180 on this if he were elected.

Trump is openly hostile to the LGBTQ+ community. He’s enacted policies such as recognizing only two legal genders, banning transgender individuals from the military, and requiring them to compete in sports leagues based on their biological gender. Poilievre, while not supportive of the LGBTQ+ community, is significantly less extreme than Trump.

This whole subject can be summed up as “less extreme.” Both Trump and Poilievre fall on the right of the political spectrum, but Poilievre is consistently less extreme in his positions. It would be a significant departure for him to suddenly act like Trump if elected.

As most people are well aware by now, in Canada, voters do not vote for their Prime Minister. They vote for their Member of Parliament, and then the party with the majority of seats in Parliament forms the government, which usually means the party leader becoming Prime Minister. If you happen to live in the riding of Nepean, you will have the opportunity to vote directly for Mark Carney as your Member of Parliament in the next election. There was some speculation that he might run in Edmonton previously.

The current incumbent, Chandra Arya, who has represented the riding since 2015, has been unceremoniously removed. Arya was also blocked from running in the Liberal Party leadership race as the party deemed him "manifestly unfit". Mark Carney went on to win that leadership race with an overwhelming majority of the roughly 150,000 votes cast by the party’s 400,000 members.

Arya posted an image of the letter he received from the party, which informed him of the revocation of his candidacy. The letter cited a “review of new information” as the reason, but did not elaborate on what that information was.

There has been some speculation that the Prime Minister might be required to reveal more information about his assets upon becoming a Member of Parliament. However, since his assets have already been put into a blind trust, he will not have to make any of the same disclosures that most elected members make.

The Prime Minister has had a busy first week on the job, announcing several new policies. These include reducing the consumer carbon tax to zero, removing the capital gains tax increase, and removing GST on homes for first-time home buyers.

The next federal announcement is widely expected to be made on Sunday, setting a date of April 28th.

Once upon a time, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party enjoyed a double-digit lead over the incumbent Liberal Party. That is all in the not-so-distant past now, as the Liberal Party has now overtaken the Conservatives as the favorite to win the next federal election (which is expected to be announced in 2 days). Part of Poilievre’s strategy early on was a mild disdain for journalists, especially those of traditional media. However, it would seem his popularity may have been born more from a rejection of the incumbent party than from real popularity.

This makes the latest move by the Conservatives all the more perplexing. The Conservatives announced earlier this week that journalists would not be allowed to travel with Poilievre when he begins campaigning. While there have been certain restrictions on media in the past, a blanket ban like this has never been done.

According to Jenni Byrne, the party's national campaign director, the decision was driven by the rising costs of travel, which have increased considerably, and the enhanced capacity for digital and remote access to public events. They also said media would be given a few days' notice of events and locations. While the digital and remote access reasoning is plausible, the bill for media traveling was never paid by the party; it was always paid for by the media organization or journalists themselves.

Poilievre has always had a rocky relationship with journalists, particularly traditional media, which he views as biased. This move could be just to continue to cultivate the image of being anti-establishment. However, more than likely, this is an attempt to gain better control over the narrative and Poilievre’s image.

Giving journalists unfiltered access adds a layer of transparency to the campaign. It also allows them to capture genuine, unscripted moments with the candidate. These can help a campaign or hinder it. So, if the Conservative Party wants to ban this type of interaction, it stands to reason they believe it’s more likely that this will hinder their campaign than help it.

So, this raises the question: What are they trying to hide and does it have anything to do with Poilievre’s lack of security clearance?

Premier Danielle Smith issued a statement this afternoon after meeting with Prime Minister Carney. She made clear something that has been fairly evident for a while — Alberta feels that Ottawa doesn’t respect its contributions to the country. The Premier clearly stated what Alberta expects from Ottawa to mend the relationship. She threatened that if the next federal government isn’t willing to meet her demands, Canada would face a “national unity crisis.” Smith’s full list of demands is as follows:

• Guaranteeing Alberta full access to oil and gas corridors to the north, east, and west

• Repealing Bill C-69 (aka. “no new pipelines act”)

• Lifting the tanker ban off the BC coast

• Eliminating the oil and gas emissions cap, which is a production cap

• Scrapping the so-called Clean Electricity Regulations

• Ending the prohibition on single use plastics

• Abandoning the net-zero car mandate

• Returning oversight of the industrial carbon tax to the provinces

• Halting the federal censorship of energy companies

It’s worth mentioning that while most of these policies have been implemented by the Liberal Party of Canada, Pierre Poilievre and his Conservative Party have already mentioned plans to address some of these issues.

Smith has been increasingly hostile toward the federal government recently. This hostility culminated in her trip to the U.S. while the federal government was negotiating trade with U.S. President Donald Trump. She also resisted discussions with the federal government regarding Canada’s response to American tariffs, refusing to sign the joint letter from the federal government and provincial premiers.

When Trump announced the tariffs, he stated that only a 10% tariff would apply to Canadian oil — almost entirely supplied by Alberta — which is down from the previously stated 25%. This suggests that Smith’s negotiations with Trump may have had some effect.

The most significant question raised by this statement is: what did Smith mean by “national unity crisis”?

It’s no secret that Alberta has periodically flirted with the idea of seceding from Canada. Key points of contention include equalization payments, with Alberta contributing the largest share to the federal government while many other provinces receive these payments.

A 2023 survey by Research Co. and Glacier Media showed that 26% of Albertans thought their province would be better off as an American state. The survey was repeated in December of 2024 and found this number increased to 30%. While substantial, it doesn’t indicate there’d be enough support to win a referendum on the matter.

Posts on X from early 2025 cite an unscientific poll by user @Martyupnorth_2, claiming 60% of over 2,500 respondents favored U.S. statehood for Alberta, with only 10% wanting to stay in Canada. While this reflects vocal sentiment on the platform, it lacks the rigor of formal polls. It should be noted that this account has a strong bias toward the political right which further invalidates the results.

Some speculate that Smith may have discussed such a move with Trump in exchange for lower tariffs, though there is no evidence to support this.

Additionally, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has been critical of the federal government recently. For example, after Canada imposed a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles, China retaliated with tariffs on Canadian canola, which has significant repercussions for Saskatchewan’s farming industry. Some speculate that if Alberta were to secede and join the U.S., Saskatchewan might follow suit.

While Smith’s statements may be political posturing, the possibility of behind-the-scenes agreements cannot be entirely dismissed, though there is no concrete evidence to support such claims.

With an election possibly being announced as early as Sunday, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s connections to Brookfield Asset Management (BAM) will be scrutinized even closer than they already have been. The Prime Minister has been accused of being anti-Canadian for voting in favor of moving BAM’s headquarters from Canada to the U.S. Critics of Carney have also accused him of having conflicts of interest due to his ties to the company.

This article aims to analyze the headquarters move and provide some basic analysis of the company to determine if there is any evidence to support the idea that Carney is not supportive of the Canadian economy.

Brookfield Corporation versus Brookfield Asset Management

Firstly, there is an important distinction to be made. Brookfield Corporation (BN) is different from BAM. The origins of Brookfield can be traced back to a Brazilian utility company founded in 1899. After several name changes, the company began focusing on diversified investments in 1969. In 2005, it adopted the name Brookfield Asset Management. Later, it spun off 25% of its asset management business into a new company called BAM, and the original parent company was renamed Brookfield Corporation.

While BN still owns a controlling interest in BAM and BAM benefits from that relationship, Mark Carney was involved in both companies. He started with BN as Vice Chair and Head of ESG and Impact Fund Investing before moving on to BAM as chairman.

Headquarters Move

On November 4, 2024, in a letter to shareholders, BAM announced that it would move its headquarters from Toronto, Canada, to New York, U.S. The stated reasons for this move were to ease access to the much larger U.S. markets and to make the company eligible for inclusion in U.S. stock indices.

The timing is important here. There have been accusations that this move was due to tariffs announced by President Donald Trump on November 25, 2025. While it’s possible BAM had some advance notice of these tariffs, it seems unlikely as they announced the move prior to the tariff announcement and in fact before Donald Trump even won the election.

Critics argue that this move cost Canadians jobs and hurt the Canadian economy. However, in reality, this was more of a symbolic move. The company already had an office in New York, and it still maintains an office in Canada. BAM remains registered as a Canadian company and continues to pay applicable taxes to the Canadian government. While there may have been some minor personnel movement to the U.S., this represents a negligible amount compared to the company’s overall assets.

BAM’s Assets

This explains why the headquarters move is relatively inconsequential in the context of the company’s overall operations. BAM manages roughly $1 trillion USD in assets located around the world. These assets are what truly matter. If one wanted to gauge BAM’s confidence in a nation’s economy, they might examine whether there was a net increase or decrease in investments in that nation. For instance, if the company sold $2 billion worth of assets in a country but only invested $1 billion in new assets there, it might suggest a lack of confidence. Conversely, investing more than they divested could indicate confidence.

As public companies, both BAM and BN make their annual reports publicly available for analysis. While BAM’s reports list assets under management by region, they do not specify individual countries. However, BN provides consolidated financial statements that include data by country. While this data would include BAM’s assets, there is no way of knowing how much belong to each company.

Although this report shows consolidated assets by country, it does not provide data on net investments. A graphic circulating on social media summarizes the changes in BN’s consolidated assets by country, which critics claim indicates Carney’s lack of faith in the Canadian economy. However, there is insufficient data to support this conclusion. A smaller increase in consolidated assets in Canada could simply be due to poor performance of existing investments rather than a deliberate reduction in investment.

One conclusion that can be drawn from the data is that Brookfield is more invested in Canada relative to its GDP compared to other countries. Canada’s GDP is about 8% that of the U.S., but Brookfield’s investment in Canada is nearly 25% of its U.S. investment.

Countries in the chart by 2023 GDP:

• United States: $27.721 trillion

• Germany: $4.526 trillion

• India: $3.568 trillion

• Brazil: $2.174 trillion

• Canada: $2.142 trillion

• Australia: $1.728 trillion

Conclusion

The available data does not provide clear evidence to support the claim that Carney is anti-Canada. There is no clear numerical evidence to suggest that Carney’s actions at Brookfield demonstrate a lack of support for Canada. Additionally, moving the headquarters from Canada to the U.S. was largely inconsequential in terms of the company’s economic impact on Canada.

Many news outlets such as Reuters and The Globe and Mail are reporting that Prime Minister Mark Carney is likely to dissolve parliament and call a federal election for the end of April or early May. They are quoting unnamed sources from within the Liberal Party.

Several polls over the last few weeks have reported a surge in support for the Liberal Party closing a massive deficit and now leading the Conservative Party. This surge coincides with Mark Carney's recent victory in the Liberal Party leadership race.

The next federal election is not due until October of this year. The Liberal Party is likely trying to capitalize on their perceived momentum in the polls without giving voters much of a chance to change their minds. An April 28th election would be one of the quickest campaigns in Canadian history.

This also comes amid tariffs and a trade war with the U.S. as well as President Donald Trump’s calls for the annexation of Canada. President Trump also said recently he’d prefer to deal with a liberal as opposed to a conservative and called out Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre as being “no friend of his”.

While Poilievre has been calling for an early election for quite some time, Canadians seem to have responded to Mark Carney’s ability to tackle the ongoing tensions with Canada’s southern neighbor.

As of this time there has been no official announcement nor comment from either the Liberal Party or Conservative Party.