Mark O’Henly retweeted
🇬🇧 just rejected Carney's defense bank. Only 8 countries have joined including Ukraine. Nothing to see here. 🤪
The "middle powers" joining Carney's Defense Bank by GDP ranking:
💰Turkey (16), Belgium (24), Romania (39), Greece (52), Ukraine (57), Luxembourg (79), Latvia (99), Albania (119)
🚫No G7 country.
🇺🇦 has received >$26 billion from 🇨🇦 & >$360 billion total. Some "contributor."
📉Carney's GFANZ banking alliance collapsed last year. As will this "bank."
➡️ Neither Carney, Champagne nor David McGuinty will provide details on 🇨🇦 defense budget given the huge spending announcements made this year.
Mark O’Henly retweeted
Egypt’s parliament has reportedly authorized Egyptian military support for Saudi Arabia to defend against the IRGC-backed Houthi terrorists.
Mark O’Henly retweeted
I wonder if Carney’s “defense bank” will fail like his GFANZ scheme.
This rejection by the UK must have stung.
Canada’s public spending as a % of GDP is essentially the same as the UK.
And a drunken sailor.
👉 xitter.cf/grok/status/2114699738…
Replying to @AlanJLSmith
@grok what is Canada’s public spending as a % of GDP on a comparable basis?
Replying to @GG37374104 @stevenchase
Haha! Having no scruples would certainly simplify life!
Mark O’Henly retweeted
Carney’s “prudent banker” brand is dead. The PBO just showed the books are being cooked
Debt-service costs are now the fastest-growing federal expense: $25B five years ago → $59B this year (already larger than the Canada Health Transfer) → $83B in five years. Pure interest, paid before anything else
PBO Annette Ryan: the government’s fiscal “anchors” are “more like traffic lights.” Capital spending gets a green light; operating spending is a yellow at best. “Limited fiscal discipline. It’s not stopping spending.”
Real cash borrowing over five years: $733B. New debt from deficits: only $333B. The ~$400B gap is being parked with Crown corporations, loans and special funds—“a step removed from parliamentary oversight.” New risks, she said, and less transparency
The former Bank of Canada/Bank of England governor who once policed balance sheets is now redefining accounting so the headline targets stay pretty while the actual liability grows off-books. Taxpayers get stuck with the interest bill @PBO_DPB
Mark O’Henly retweeted

tobi lutke@tobi17h
🇨🇦!
CanadaConnected via Canada App StoreLocation may be affected by a proxy or VPN.Account-level information, not a live location or per-post device.
She would know
#REPORT: Former Deputy Mayor Under Olivia Chow, Now Liberal MP Jennifer McKelvie, Endorses Brad Bradford For Mayor. ✅
“He Is the Mayor That Toronto Needs.”
Replying to @stevenchase
In a country where no one is properly held accountable for anything, paying for goods before leaving the store becomes seen as optional.
Mark O’Henly retweeted
Full interview where CBC introduced Camosun instructor Daniel Reeve as a neutral political science expert to analyze BC’s new Conservative premier Lorne Doerkson. What they left out: Reeve is a former NDP candidate who worked as a ministerial aide under an NDP government
Here’s the “non-partisan” analysis: He opens by calling Doerkson’s tone “humble” and “sincere,” then immediately undercuts the majority: more than half of voters didn’t support him, so the numbers “don’t quite back that up.” Classic framing of a Conservative win as less legitimate than the seat count
On the campaign, he contrasts Eby’s Trump-focused pitch with the Conservatives actually talking about the deficit, emergency care, and the economy—implying the NDP missed the mark while the right read the room
Then the money quote on Doerkson’s plan: they’ll walk through the budget, declare “it’s worse than we thought,” and impose “a whole bunch of cuts so that we don’t raise taxes and so that we don’t cut health care.” This, he says, is the message meant to “hold that center right to kind of far right coalition together and also kind of pin the problems of his government on the past.”
He later describes Carney as closer to the NDP on fiscal questions, notes the provincial NDP had shifted toward the center, and flags energy/forestry expansion as creating problems with DRIPA and Indigenous consent. On the snap election, he relays an “NDP kind of leaning supporter” who refused to “walk across hot coals” to vote NDP, frames Eby’s call as “here’s the fire. Follow me,” and points to 200,000 previous NDP voters who stayed home
All of it delivered as dispassionate academic insight from a former NDP candidate and government aide. Disclosure by CBC was apparently optional. This is not journalism @CBCOmbud
CBC platformed Camosun political science instructor Daniel Reeve to analyze Premier-designate Lorne Doerkson and somehow forgot to mention the tiny detail that Reeve himself ran as an NDP candidate (and worked as a ministerial aide to NDP Health Minister Corky Evans)
Here’s the “neutral expert” take they ran: “I thought one of the things that jumped out to me is that they are going to go that one of the first things that the premier elect suggested is a financial basically walking through of the budget. And I think that from that analysis, they're going to say, oh, my God, it's worse than we thought. And now we're going to have to impose a whole bunch of cuts so that we don't raise taxes and so that we don't cut health care. And that. That's going to be the financial message that's going to hopefully, from his perspective, hold that center right to kind of far right coalition together and also kind of pin the problems of his government on the past.”
Just another dispassionate academic, right? The same lifelong NDP activist who spent years organizing campaigns and working inside an NDP government is now on the public broadcaster framing the new Conservative government as a cynical cut-and-blame operation aimed at “center-right to far-right” voters. Disclosure optional, apparently
CBC’s mountain of omissions continues @CBCOmbud @BrodieFenlon
Mark O’Henly retweeted
My reflections on Monday’s referendum—and the road ahead for Alberta
More than 500,000 Albertans—over 25% of everyone who voted—supported moving Alberta toward a referendum on independence.
That is more than one voter in four, and it is a remarkable achievement.
We reached that level of support despite every established political party deploying its infrastructure and resources against us, well-funded third-party campaigns defending the status quo, and the Stay side enjoying the support of the publicly funded media.
In my view, the playing field was not level.
Serious concerns remain about the consistency of Elections Alberta’s enforcement of election and campaign-finance rules which allowed Thomas Lukaszuk and Forever Canadian to receive out of province donations and donations over the limits applied to the rest of us.
Nevertheless, more than half a million Albertans stood up and said that the status quo is no longer acceptable.
They represent a substantial and growing constituency that wants constitutional change, economic freedom and a better future for Alberta—and their voices cannot responsibly be dismissed or ignored.
We must respect Monday’s democratic result. We must also recognize that our work is far from finished.
There is much more to do to help a majority of Albertans understand that, by every objective measure, our children and grandchildren can have a more prosperous, secure and hopeful future if Alberta controls its own destiny.
We must take the time to explain the opportunity, answer legitimate questions and demonstrate that a better future is both achievable and practical.
My focus will continue to be on persuading more Albertans—not merely speaking to those who already agree with us.
At the same time, I will continue encouraging Premier Danielle Smith and the UCP government to pursue meaningful structural and constitutional reforms without delay.
That means demanding statutory and structural changes in Ottawa that address Alberta’s fundamental weakness within Confederation, including:
• reforming equalization;
• securing the immediate repeal of the remaining nine federal laws damaging Alberta;
• requiring Ottawa to respect the constitutional division of powers and Alberta’s exclusive areas of jurisdiction;
• insisting that the federal government comply with the Alberta Court of Appeal’s latest ruling concerning the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act; and
• defending the resource-development rights Peter Lougheed secured for Alberta under section 92A of the Constitution.
Alberta needs more than temporary political promises.
We need structural reforms that create lasting economic certainty and protect future generations from another National Energy Program, another series of laws like those imposed under Justin Trudeau, or a new federal export tax on Alberta oil arising from the current trade dispute with the United States.
I do not personally support creating a separate independence party at this time.
I do not believe gathering people who already support independence into a smaller political party will persuade the majority of Albertans who remain uncertain that independence is the right and achievable path.
Instead, I intend to continue supporting Premier Smith and the UCP while strongly encouraging them to expand Alberta’s autonomy and pursue genuine structural reform.
I also believe it is essential that the UCP remain a broad conservative coalition.
I encourage Premier Smith to make it clear that Albertans who believe our province has a more prosperous future as an independent nation have a welcoming place within the party. Supporting independence should not exclude anyone from contributing to the conservative movement or working toward our shared goals.
At the same time, I encourage Alberta independence advocates to recognize the importance of maintaining conservative unity and working with the UCP to prevent an NDP government from taking office. Such an outcome would risk setting back the progress we have made and delay another referendum for many years.
We can continue advocating for independence, growing public support and making our case to Albertans while remaining united in our determination to defeat the NDP in the next provincial election. These objectives are not mutually exclusive.
In my view, this is the most realistic path toward greater freedom for Alberta—and potentially toward independence in the future if Ottawa remains unwilling to undertake meaningful reform.
Monday’s result was not the destination, but neither was it a defeat of the idea.
More than 500,000 Albertans have given us a strong foundation upon which to build.
Our responsibility now is to remain united, learn from the campaign, improve our case and earn the confidence of more Albertans.
This chapter has ended. The work of building a freer, stronger and more prosperous Alberta continues.
Replying to @acoyne
Subsidizing and keeping the country’s media beholden to the Liberal Party of Canada has been a very effective political tactic.
Replying to @LDoerkson @StephanieKusie
Congratulations. I hope your success this evening heralds a new era of cooperation and collaboration between BC and the other western provinces.
Mark O’Henly retweeted

Chris Martz@ChrisMartzWXOct 25
🇺🇸
United StatesConnected via United States App StoreAccount-level information, not a live location or per-post device.
“Hail is getting bigger.”
Okay, so why is that not actually happening?
Across the country, hail causes billions of dollars in damage every year, and scientists believe that climate change will make things worse. Hail is getting bigger, and hailstorms are becoming larger and more frequent. wapo.st/4hYHp5N
Replying to @UNWatch
The international community provided great support for the US to go to war in response to the 9/11 terrorist attack.
There are two reasons the same support is not in place following the horrific October 7 pogrom: because Israel and because Jews.
Replying to @JasminLaine
Unfortunately the Liberal government is more interested in domestic politics, rewarding friends with satellite contracts, and in protecting the Bell/Telus/Rogers.
Mark O’Henly retweeted
Jasmin is absolutely right about rural connectivity. After 34 years of farming in Manitoba, I know how often rural Canadians were left behind by traditional internet providers. Starlink delivered a practical solution where others failed. Elon Musk deserves credit for that.
Canadian governments should be encouraging innovation and competition, not turning successful technology into a political football because they dislike the man behind it.
Judge the technology by what it delivers, not the politics of its creator.
I’m a Canadian who loves Starlink. In fact, on our rural property, there were no Canadian providers who could provide us with internet due to the location/tree coverage.
So we applied for Starlink on the trial when it first launched.
Best thing we ever did for the farm. All of the neighbours now have it as well, and it literally connected everyone with no service for decades to full bars and the ability to call on wifi/check the news and weather online for literally the first time.
I think it’s disgraceful that the Canadian government is trying to score political points and villainize such an effective product made by a Canadian citizen. Thanks @elonmusk for how much your product improved our quality of life.

















