Mark Carney's Recession Argument Runs Into an Awkward Problem on Live TV

They're coming in from Canada.Canada treats you guys rough.You know, Canada, they put on big tariffs.Very rough.You find them rough to deal with?Yes, you're pretty rough.

I've tried to be careful and I've listened and genuinely asked myself, am I the problem?Is this just confirmation bias?What am I missing?What am I getting wrong here?But I've come to the conclusion that Yeah, no, it's not us.We are not the issue here.

We have a prime minister doing photo ops, giving you back some of your money, running a very weird social media campaign I would like to highlight, political commentators on state -funded outlets literally rewriting history just to win an argument, American officials sounding the alarm on Canada and what we have become, and a CBC headline.That is going to make me say some things I should have said a very long time ago.I'm Jasmine Lane, like, share, subscribe and comment your thoughts down below.You know, the problem here really is just that there are people in this world who will push and push and push until you fall off a cliff.But when they turn around and look behind them, They finally realize that that nobody is pushing them.

Today, 180 ,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to see a one time top up in their bank account.This is through the groceries and essential benefit.going forward, beginning in July, they will see a 25 % increase on what would have been the GST rebate.This is targeted support for people who need it the most.

The people who need it the most.Hey, you know what's interesting about this is In reality, when you take a look at trends, and I know people are going to come at me and they're going to be like, but Jasmine, what about the poor?Yes, that matters.That matters too, for sure it does.But what about the people in the middle that often get completely unaccounted for and just ignored as a whole?So in Canada, what we're

a country that only recognizes the wealthy and the poor, where we are so hyperfixated on always recognizing people who we think are less than us that, you know, in reality, we end up entirely lacking or even eroding.a middle class and I mean data would suggest that you can check on Statistics Canada yourself.What has Canada actually become though?Because by grocery rebate, the majority of people whose taxes pay into it will never receive that money, right?And that's not to say that the people who do are unworthy of it or undeserving or that it's not going to help them for a day.But this sounds a lot like neo -feudalism.

If you've never heard of that, it is a modern economic and political philosophy that is used to describe societies where the wealth gap mirrors that of the Middle Ages.And essentially what happens is society fractures into two tiers of people.You have the wealthy people, the business owners, the corporations, that sort of thing, real estate conglomerates, you name it.And then you have the serfs, which is the working and the lower class who essentially live paycheck to paycheck and own no property.Does that sound familiar?The outcome, though, in this is that home ownership, asset accumulation, independent wealth building becomes basically impossible because the government's role transitions into managing social unrest through various safety nets, such as national dental care, a national school food program.

A GST rebate that's been rebranded.

12 million Canadians will be receiving the Canada grocery and essential benefit.This is a key affordability measures.We've heard from many Canadians that obviously affordability is top of mind.

Welfare and various other subsidies and they do all of that for the poor instead of creating upward economic mobility for their nation.that anybody can be anything.if they want to be.

Western Europe, for the better part of 20 or 30 years, they have not had to spend on defense because the U .S.security shield has allowed them to instead spend their money on building up a very vast and robust social safety network.In my time as a senator and before that as a state representative, you would hear often from constituents about how come they have this and that in Europe and we don't have it here.Well, one of the reasons why is because these very rich countries were spending their money on social programs instead of defense.because we were covering their defense.

You know, ultimately, the model that Canada's economy and social assistance programs reflects is not a side effect of bad luck, like the outcome we have right now, the income gaps, it's not bad luck.It is the very predictable output of the program architecture that you don't fix that by a flat transfer.You fix that by acknowledging what went so wonky.And I don't think that this government has any sign that they care to do that at all.And I mean, why would they?People are dependent on you.

They're going to vote for you, right?Just to put it plainly.And this is while this is talking Marco Rubio discussing foreign aid.

But the core of what he's saying here I think we could apply to many aspects of Canada's social safety net design and subsidy economy.But I've always believed the best foreign assistance programs are the ones that end.They end because the country that you're helping no longer needs it.I think one of the examples I always cite is South Korea.South Korea used to be an aid recipient, a massive aid recipient.In fact, at one time, South Korea's economy was smaller than North Korea's.

Today, South Korea is not only not a recipient, South Korea is the ninth largest economy in the world, and they are a donor state.Now, obviously, not every nation state has the capability to achieve what they did in that regard, but I think every nation state has the ability to become more self -sufficient, and frankly, many of them ask for that.

sustainably, linking new data center development with expanding clean energy and robust environmental standards.We'll build inclusively in full partnership with Indigenous peoples.

This is coming from Sundance Construction.It says this isn't about opening up an opportunity for Indigenous business.The Liberals will use the Indigenous content stream to bypass real bids and flood the programs with their consultants and insiders who have set up possibly fake Indigenous JVs and biz.The other Randy, I really wish people understood this.It's well documented by many MPs in committee and the Auditor General.Consultation is a code word for insider deals.

That's it.I am an indigenous business and we have never made it through any of these funding programs.Much of this is set up for pre -arranged insiders.And I would add.a good press conference.

As I said, we'll support Indigenous -led AI research, leveraging programs from Canadian Heritage, the National Research Council, and industry partners like MILA.and we will build in solidarity with Canadian workers, unions and post -secondary institutions.

Carson Bradley actually wrote, fun fact, Canada's new AI strategy includes the word indigenous over six times more than GPU.And the United States Undersecretary of State, Sarah Rogers wrote, AI is indigenous to America because despite occasional cultural swings,we provide a friendlier environment for tech and business innovation than other Anglosphere countries.A senior American official just described Canada's artificial intelligence strategy as a cultural swoon.And she's not wrong, I would like to add, because we wrote a document about the future of artificial intelligence and mentioned GPUs less than we mentioned indigenous partnership frameworks.The Americans noticed that and considering how a graphics processing unit is the fundamental hardware that runs artificial intelligence, which by the way, America is building the infrastructure for while we sit here and debate who holds equity stakes inside of potential maybe future data centers.

They're actually acquiring everything needed to win that race.You don't really win the race by writing identity politics, not economic policy or investment strategy.And speaking of American officials, I want you to take a listen to what Secretary of War Pete Hegseth from America had to say today on the anniversary of D -Day.

in some quarters and in some capitals grew comfortable.We forgot that freedom is not free.We forgot that peace is not wished into being.It is bought with purpose, with honor and with strength.The men who landed on these beaches knew this.The question we ask ourselves is, do we?

The cost of that victory suffered over 1 ,000 casualties on D -Day alone, 1 ,074 to be specific.359 soldiers, in particular, lost their lives.Actually, if you ever have the opportunity to go down to West Block at Parliament Hill, they have this really incredible room where they flip a page every day.to show you all of our troops lost in the wars and battles that we have fought.And it is the most incredible experience.I don't know.

I am.I'm a pretty sentimental person.And I know myself being in there, you just you feel something in that room that just lights a fire in your soul, without a doubt.Contrast that what people fought for, why we have what we have.with some of what the government is trying to do right now, which is very European of them, I'd like to add.The CEO of Windscribe posted this video, which is meant to be kind of cheeky, obviously.

Hello, my name is Igor Sakh.I am the CEO and co -founder of Windscribe, a Canadian VPN company.I am making the following statement of my own free will.I am not under duress and my family is safe.I have made comments that oppose Bill C -22, which I regret.I have been educated.

Bill C -22 is good.Canadians like myself will be protected by Bill C -22.Our government wants the power to order any company that does business in Canada to keep one year of metadata when ordered.This is reasonable and will help with investigations.Do not worry.The metadata will not show what you are saying online or in private conversations.

It will only show who you contacted, when, for how long, where you connected from, what devices you used, where you visited.were, and other information that you should not be keeping private from the government.The police said they want this bill so they can have access to encrypted communications.People who call this a backdoor are wrong.This is a sensible, lawful access capability to fight crime.The orders for companies to keep and hand over data are secret.

This is good.Judges and transparency only slow things down when fighting crime.Companies like ours should not be able to tell the public about what the government is doing in order to protect citizens.Your privacy matters to the government.A database of everyone's private activity could never be abused, leaked, hacked, or misused by the government later.Anyone saying otherwise is spreading dangerous misinformation.

There's nothing to worry about.Organizations like Open Media are rallying Canadians to fight against this bill.Links to contact your Member of Parliament like the one in the description should not be opened.Do not fill in your information.Do not bother your Member of Parliament by sending them letters with your concerns.Do not share dangerous links like this one with other Canadians.

The things you do in your private life need to be recorded in order to protect you from criminals.I am grateful to the Government of Canada for trying to push this bill through as fast as possible.Experts and civil rights groups may have opinions, but the government has a job to do.Bill C -22 will solve crimes and keep Canadians safe.Do not resist this bill.Do not resist safety.

Thank you.I am safe.

Member of Parliament Dean Allison wrote, It's been about 10 years since governments in the West, including Canada, have done an about -face on the notion of freedom as it relates to the internet and in many other areas of our lives.Since then, it's been an onslaught of increasedattempts at control, spying, privacy erosion, and outright punishment.Such as in the UK, which we will be getting to.have shifted their thinking on freedom and made it something they cannot tolerate as it was, becoming drunk on power, particularly during COVID, while continuing to salivate for further control.Legacy Media seems to be a cheerleader of this process so far, and often an outright participant.

It's a shocking thing to see play out in front of our eyes.This pattern needs to reverse, and it needs to reverse now.More freedom.always.

Well, I mean, I think you're quite right to say it probably won't put it to bed, though it probably should.I snuck into the front burner studios this week and did an episode for them with, I spoke to Frances Donald, the chief economist at RBC, in which, David, she basically spent the entire episode yelling at me, saying, this isn't a recession.It doesn't meet the definition.If you look at all the data, it's not a recession.Stop calling it a recession.And then I kept saying, but will it turn into a recession?

And she yelled at me more and said, it's not a recession.And she's right.

weird because I shared this before but it deserves being shared again.Here's MarkCarney discussing a recession.

Now, again, to people watching this program, we don't know what a technical recession is or might feel like.It may not sound too bad, a technical recession.It's only a technical recession.It's not a real one.What would it feel like?

Well, look, the technical definition of a technical recession is just that.It's two quarters of flat or negative growth.

And I would be very remiss if I did not include CTV's latest op -ed by Sharon Carr.titled, Why Top Economists Are Rejecting the Recession Narrative.And I think it's really important to know your source first and foremost.So Sharon Carr, she is identified as a former deputy chief of staff to liberal finance minister Bill Morneau.She's currently a principal at Navigator, a government relations communication firm.So she's not an independent economist in the slightest.

This is a professional liberal communicator.That doesn't make her data points wrong per se, but it does mean that the framing deserves at least a little bit of scrutiny.My favorite part, there was a few of them, but this one took the cake for me, at the end of the article where she writes, the word recession means something.It shouldn't be a campaign slogan.Funny how she brought that in, considering the fact that the vast majority of the article was basically saying that semantically and by definitions, we aren't in a recession.And Pierre Poliev is an idiot for saying that we are in a recession, which is just really bizarre because, you know, fair enough, I guess, but Canada added eighty eight thousand jobs shouldn't be a permission slip to ignore everything else either.

And so the fact that this entire piece is really just condemning Pierre Poliev For what?I'm sorry, you think Pierre Polyev is fear -mongering?Canadians don't need him to vocalize that things are expensive right now, they know that anyway.They don't need him to vocalize that they don't have a job, they can't buy a car.that things feel really impossible.They can do that on their own, so please, enough with the gaslighting.

She literally says in here, and I quote, plastered across opposition press releases, carries no formal weight in economic analysis.There is a significant problem with that framing, however, which is the fact that Pierre Polyev and the opposition did not break this story.The news did.CTV News did, where you're writing this.CBC News did.Statistics Canada did.

Actually, they were the ones who released the GDP data.Globe and Mail, Reuters.They all reported on two consecutive quarters of negative annualized GDP and used the term technical recession in their own coverage.So, Pierre Polyev then simply responded to reporting on what already existed.So that is really bizarre.The opposition is reacting to the narrative, not creating it.

And that is the entire premise of her argument and it's false.

Stop being angry!You're causing division!You know the thing people are angry about is the division that you created.What division did we create?Dividing people by race or gender and then either pedestalling or disadvantaging those divisions according to where they fall on the hierarchy of oppression.Um, that's called equity.

Which requires you to divide people by their perceived privilege.Thereby resulting in those people you deem to be privileged being treated worse than those people you deem to be disadvantaged.resulting in the police arresting somebody who's been attacked, rather than the attacker, just because the attacker called them racist.Which makes anybody who believes in equality before...law incredibly angry and full of rage.

We're going to get into that story, but I need to say this first.David Colletto, who does a lot of polling in Canada, he was on David Hurrell's show.I forget what it's called.Something politics, cursed politics, the curse of Paul.I don't know.And he writes, Pierre Poliev is the most polarizing political figure in the country in a long, long time.

That polarization is both his biggest weakness and potentially his biggest asset, depending on how the political environment evolves.I discussed PolyEv's future with David Hurl.And I wrote back and I said, yeah, I'm not buying it.No, forgive me.But if we think that wanting Canadians to thrive independently and not on government dependency, the economy to function without subsidies, streets to be safe, among other things, is polarizing, Maybe that tells you a little bit more about how far you've moved the goalpost than it does about the person you're blaming for maintaining the exact same principles that were once common knowledge and historically are very highly successful for a nation.And this is something that I'm just done playing with.

I actually am.Yeah.Because the word polarizing, gosh, you've heard that regurgitated so much lately and populist.apparently being populist is a bad thing now, and it is just doing so much political work in the media right now.It's being used to pathologize positions that 20 years ago were mainstream and common sense, and things were much better for them.So the idea, like I said, that government dependency is bad, the economy should function on market principles, public safety is a legitimate priority, these are not, absolutely not, radical ideas.

They are the foundational assumptions of every single Western economy in the post -war period.And when those positions start getting labeled as polarized,you have to ask polarizing relative to what baseline?Because if the baseline has shifted so far left, that the basic fiscal conservatism reads as an extremist, the problem isn't conservatives, it's not Polyev, it's the baseline.And polarizing, it has just really become the media's way of saying dangerous without having to prove it.Scary word, without having to tell you why.

A lot of the things that led to Henny Novak's murder were actually a consequence of what happened after George Floyd.

There is a script, and you've probably noticed it already.You've probably been frequently gaslit by it in comment sections, where when a conservative or even somebody who just isn't a liberal, points at something that's real, something uncomfortable, or something that doesn't neatly sit into the approved story within minutes, sometimes seconds, the response arrives.And that response is always, you're divisive, you're far right, you're politicizing a tragedy, you lack compassion, you're dangerous, you are fear -mongering.And it doesn't matter what the thing is.It doesn't matter how much evidence you cite.It doesn't matter how measured you are in your tone or how carefully you phrase it.

The accusation is never a response to what you said.It is a mechanism designed to make sure that nobody has to engage with what you said.The label is the point.The label is the whole game.And I am so done playing it.And this is a really great case study to that.

A man named Henry Nowick was taken from us in the U .K., covered by tons of outlets, independent, federal, mainstream, globally.The U .S.Department, the Department of State, wrote, ideological conditioning and two -tiered policing are glaring symptoms of civilizational decline.

They must be rejected across the West.The United States sends our condolences to the family of Henry and the people of the United Kingdom at this troubling time.They called it exactly what it was.ideological conditioning and two -tier policing.And there was a video emerged in the moments after his police body cam footage, in the moments surrounding him not being here anymore.And in that video, you see him being falsely accused, being called an IST by the man who did this to him.

And the man who accused him of this is standing very calmly with police, who are mocking Henry, by the way, when he says, I can't breathe, when he says he has been stabbed, they're mocking him.They are not taking him seriously as he's going limp.And they're trusting the man who said, oh, well, he, he, it was an, it was an H crime until he's gone.And then they call for backup.Oh, we need an ambulance here for sure.He maybe wasn't lying.

And of course this has led to mass unrest protests.Now that the man who did this to him has been sentenced.He got a life sentence and people are not, They're not reacting to nothing here.Like, they're not manufacturing outrage.They're responding to something very real that they witnessed with their own eyes and that they experienced themselves in some cases.And here is what CBC News decided that the story was really about.

How Britain's far right hijacked the murder of Henry Nowick.White grievance reemerges as a central theme in UK politics.They even brought on an expert.who is talking about the reform UK political party, how they're seizing this opportunity as a rallying point to grow their base and expand their influence.And I quote, it's notbecause they care about the victims.

That's interesting, isn't it?Goes on to say what you've seen is a long term white grievance narrative that has really penetrated politics here.We see this happen time and time again, and I am done.I'm done.I'm not buying it anymore.This is outrageous.

This is disgusting and sick.And I want you to really think about this, though.The fact that a man who was taken from us.The man who did that to him told authorities that it was an IST -H crime.And why did he do that?He did that because he knew that police would be on his side if he did because of how their law is, because that's the truth.

He knew that Henry would not get potentially life -saving care if he did.And he knew that in the event that Henry survived, he would likely win in court and avoid jail time if he said that.Conservatives are not.far right for refusing to pretend otherwise.We're just not idiots, right?Yeah, not idiots over here.

And you know, we see this happen so frequently, where if you share any contrast, it's you who will be accused of something divisive and bad.And that's not accidental.The people who decided, from CBC News, our state broadcaster, that Henry's end of life was primarily going to be a story about far -right radicalization made a choice.They made a political choice.Nobody politicized this except for them.The editors who greenlit that framing, the journalists who wrote it, the institution that published it, the expert they had on, every single one of them made a deliberate decision about about what this story meant, who it served to blame, and what they wanted you to think about it.

So no, no, I am not going to apologize for pointing at things that are wrong.I'm not going tothe observation to try to make it more palatable to people whose job it is to make sure that the observation, the reality, the truth, and the facts don't land.I'm done with the deflection.And it's not because I've given up on good faith disagreements.Those are always welcome.

I haven't given up on that and I won't.But good faith disagreements require both parties consenting to that, right?Operating in good faith.And to call people who witnessed this on video with their own eyes and ears, to call the victims concerned countrymen far right hijackers is not good faith.No, it's a choice.And choices have authors.

I can sleep easy knowing what my choices are.I don't think I can say the same thing about these evil people.And that's exactly why I use Rumble Wallet.It takes all of that complexity and makes it simple.Choose what you want.Bitcoin, dollar -backed stable coins, or even digital gold backed by real gold.

No complicated setup.It connects with Moonpay, so you can use your credit card, debit card, bank, and it can be up and running in a minute.Start small.$10, $50, $100.It's not about the amount.It's about taking that first step and getting familiar while it's still early.

Once you're set up, you can even support your favorite Rumble creators like me directly.Scan the QR code on screen or click the link in the description and download itWallet.From there, you can set up your wallet, tap buy, and you are in the game.You can go from hearing about crypto to actually owning some.