Alberta independence is how we end the economic uncertainty created by Ottawa.

First city ever built on mars. You get to name it. What's it gonna be?

Conservatives want a pipeline without a carbon tax, not a carbon tax without a pipeline. The Liberals are celebrating yet another deal to raise the industrial carbon tax, but after 14 months the Liberals have delivered no pipeline, no permits, no route, no construction timeline, and no plan to actually get Canadian energy to market. Conservatives oppose the industrial carbon tax because as the CEO of Cenovus and many other industry leaders have pointed out, it does nothing to reduce global emissions and only makes Canada less competitive with every other major energy producer in the world. Conservatives are calling on the government to: • Scrap the industrial carbon tax • Approve Alberta’s pipeline submission within 100 days • Get shovels in the grand for a Pacific pipeline by end of 2026 • Unlock production growth by removing anti-development laws and red tape such as Bill C-69. As I said back in December in the House on this very same topic “when the Liberals said they could move ‘at a speed and scale not seen in generations’, did they mean building projects or just raising taxes?"

"Honda’s $15-billion EV complex in Alliston, Ontario, moved this week from a temporary pause to what looks increasingly like an indefinite halt. The project was announced in 2024 with great fanfare by Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford, billed as the largest single private-sector investment in Ontario history, and underpinned by billions in government subsidies. The government had picked its winner. The winner has changed its mind. This is what picking winners looks like at scale. The Honda collapse is not an isolated data point; the entire EV supply chain strategy proudly assembled under the Trudeau government rested on a set of assumptions about market direction that have since been proven wrong, at significant cost to the public. But the problem was not just the assumptions; it was the model: highly centralized, heavily subsidized, driven from the top down, with the federal government effectively deciding which industries and companies would define Canada’s economic future. …To date, the Carney government’s industrial strategy has copied the same basic architecture as Trudeau’s: Ottawa identifies priorities, deploys capital to shape outcomes, then measures success by the number of announcements. The risk is that what looks like a win in 2024 looks like a huge liability by 2026.” - Andrew Potter, @build_canada buildcanada.substack.com/p/g…

Pick your economic miracle: South Korea, West Germany, Singapore, Japan. Not a single one of them happened because some putz leader spent all his time promising special treatment for companies he liked.

Tordior is right. In the 1980s, the US and Europe encouraged Japanese investment because they thought it would bring the "Japanese" management style that explained Japan's manufacturing success. But Japanese manufacturers ended up being no more successful than local ones once they were no longer protected by unlimited cheap financing, an undervalued currency, compliant labor unions, and government overspending on logistics and transportation infrastructure. In fact by the late 1990s, when because of terrible debt burdens Japanese producers could no longer count on the factors that were the real secret of their international competitiveness, reformers in Europe and the US were no longer demanding that their businesses become more "Japanese" in order to succeed. It was now Japanese reformers who insisted that their businesses become more "American". The point is that Chinese manufacturing is not more competitive than European manufacturing because of some special Chinese sauce that can be sprinkled abroad as easily as it is sprinkled at home. It is more competitive because it is based in an economy in which its competitiveness is driven by intervention in the country's external accounts. That is not to say that there aren't individual sectors in which Chinese manufacturers are genuinely more efficient that Europeans, but these sectors only emerged after many years of substantial protection and support from the Chinese government. The point is that if foreign manufacturers are aggressively outcompeting EU manufacturers because of substantial direct and indirect subsidies, the EU has three options. First, do nothing and see its share of global manufacturing wither. Second, match the subsidies and risk seeing the EU's debt burden rise as quickly as China's. Or three, intervene in the external account by enough to neutralize the effect of foreign ontervention. All of this would probably be more obvious if the EU's biggest economy, Germany, hadn't once enjoyed (and still enjoys to some extent) many of the very advantages that now threaten it. Manufacturers in extremely competitive, surplus economies think that because they are more competitive globally, they must also be more efficient. In fact, as Japan's example overwhelmingly illustrates, the direct and indirect subsidies that made their manufacturers so globally competitive also undermined their efficiency to such an extent that, once they were eliminated, many of them, unable to compete, quickly went bankrupt.

Mark Carney announced the Liberals will suspend the federal fuel excise tax on gas, diesel and aviation fuel starting on next Monday until Labour Day The PM says this will remove up to 10 cents per litre on gasoline and 4 cents per litre on diesel fuel. #cdnpoli