Nancy's Notes

The Holding Pattern Over Washington. Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with Donald Trump tomorrow. And before we go any further, yes, Prime Minister. He’s earned the title. Trump? Technically holds one too, but that doesn’t mean we have to place a capital P beside his name like some sort of honorific halo. Not here.

This meeting is not the solution. It’s the set-up. The positioning. The flight plan filed before we even taxi to the runway. Let me be clear: you don’t barrel your aircraft into a storm system thinking you’ll land without turbulence. You enter the holding pattern. You watch for the weather and check for the traffic. You listen closely to what’s being said on the radio and intuitively know the things you have to consider. Then, and only then, do you start your descent.

We voted Mark Carney in to deal with this. To deal with him. But solving the tariff war on Tuesday? Not happening. Not because Carney isn’t up to the job, but because anyone who thinks you can solve Donald Trump in one meeting is either a grifter or a fool. Or Pierre Poilievre. And thank God it’s not Pierre walking into that room.

Let’s be honest: can you even imagine that meeting if it was Pierre sitting across from Trump, nodding earnestly while Trump asks whether we’re still mining maple syrup or if Canada has joined NATO yet. The level of bootlicking would require a chiropractor on standby. And I say this not as a partisan, but as a Canadian who’s watched Trump devour weak men with glee.

So yes, we should all be relieved it’s Carney in that room. If anyone understands both diplomacy and danger, it’s the guy who’s managed world economies and has danced with politicians. He’s dealt with unstable markets and unstable egos; this is just another high-stakes derivative.

Because it’s not just Trump across the table it’s the entire performance machine around him. Look at yesterday’s interview with Meet the Press. It somehow managed to be both wild and tediously familiar. He screamed fake news, denied facts, rewrote history mid sentence and still somehow stayed seated. The Press have to walk that impossible line again: tell the truth without triggering a Trump walkout. It’s a theater of the absurd, except his absurdity has nukes and tariffs.

So tomorrow Mark Carney walks into that room where reality is flexible, truth is optional, and even a basic statement could spark a tantrum or a social media post with global consequences. He’ll be surrounded not just by cameras, but by people who believe Trump is a prophet and Carney is the enemy. And in that room, facts may not protect him.

Now, let’s not kid ourselves, Trump will need a win. His team will demand it. His base will expect it. His far-right media acolytes, the ones who show up to Oval Office pressers pretending to be journalists, will script the moment before it even unfolds. We’ve seen it before. Zelensky. Stoltenberg. The set-up, the sucker punch, the silence. Carney will have to stare into that chaos and not flinch.

This isn’t a bilateral negotiation. It’s not even a policy discussion. It’s a theatre of power, and the stage has been set by a man whose whims now drive global markets. And here’s the kicker: no matter what Carney does, whether he gives Trump a diplomatic off-ramp or calmly defends Canada’s position, the right-wing outrage machine will light up anyway. “He didn’t fix it!” they’ll cry. “Poilievre would’ve stood up to Trump!” they’ll insist, from behind anonymous usernames and keyboard courage.

Let them scream. Because those of us who understand diplomacy know that sometimes progress looks like nothing at all, until later, when the landing gear drops and you finally touch down somewhere closer to stability.

But if you’re still holding out hope that Tuesday’s meeting will be predictable, manageable, or even tethered to reality, let me offer you this final moment of clarity: the man across from Mark Carney, the one who’s torched trade deals, insulted veterans, and mocked our leadership, recently posted a photoshopped image of himself as the Pope. Not satire. Not parody. A full-blown papal fantasy, mitre and all. You don’t have to be Catholic. You don’t even have to be religious. You just have to be awake to feel your stomach turn at the sheer narcissistic delusion of it. When I first saw it, I didn’t believe it. I checked. Then I double-checked. And then I had to sit with what it meant.

Mark Carney isn’t negotiating with a leader. He’s walking into a room with someone who thinks he’s divine. So no, he won’t fix it all in one meeting. But thank God it’s him in that seat, and not someone like Poilievre still trying to impress the man with the holy headshot on Truth Social.

This isn’t gossip or chatter; it’s been confirmed. In Mark Carney’s first press conference after becoming Prime Minister, he announced that King Charles III will travel to Canada to personally deliver the Speech from the Throne. That hasn’t happened since Queen Elizabeth II did so in 1977, a moment steeped in symbolism during the Trudeau Sr. years.

Usually, the Throne Speech is read by the Governor General, in our case, Mary Simon, a proud and historic choice herself. But this time, the Crown isn’t just sending a representative. This time, the Crown is showing up.

And that matters, maybe not to everyone. Perhaps not to staunch anti-monarchists or younger generations who understandably question the monarchy’s relevance. Heck, I know I have questioned it. But to me, at least for today, it matters.

I would like to tell you a little story.

In 2002, the Queen and Prince Philip came to Moncton, New Brunswick. My father, 79 at the time, a Second World War veteran, was receiving an award on behalf of The Canadian Aviation Historical Society. He had been fully briefed on royal protocol: no casual conversation, no jokes, no stepping outside the lines.

Naturally, he broke a rule.

He said something that made the Queen laugh out loud. Not politely, genuinely. And in that moment, Prince Philip, then 81 and also a veteran, turned to my father and said: “What a cheeky young man.” Two veterans. Two old souls from two very different worlds. But for that one second, connected.

And maybe that cheekiness wasn’t just my father’s. Maybe it was a little bit Canadian. Because let’s face it, for all our global reputation as the polite ones, the nice ones, the peacekeepers and middle-grounders, we’ve shown something else these past few months.

When our sovereignty was threatened, we didn’t flinch. When tariffs were imposed, we didn’t bow. When democracy itself came under pressure, we didn’t roll over. We got cheeky. We got bold.

We got Canadian.

So whether you love or loathe the monarchy, King Charles’ decision to come here, despite serious health concerns and a world full of other priorities, means something. It’s not about pomp. It’s about presence. And presence means power.

You don’t have to be a monarchist to understand why this matters. You don’t even have to agree with the institution to acknowledge what this moment represents. Because right now, at this moment in history, it’s not the time to get caught up in that debate. It’s the time to recognize support when it’s given, and strength when it stands beside us. Remember that we are one of fifty-five Commonwealth countries that cover all corners of the planet and some of them are significant allies. Because the monarchs attendance and recognition, may indicate that the “nice guys” on the block are more recognized, tougher (and cheekier) than they look.

Sometimes, diplomacy looks like quiet defiance. Sometimes, a nation’s character shows up in a moment of laughter. And sometimes, it may be represented by a simple statement such as “What a cheeky young man.” But maybe that cheeky young (not young) man was just representative of a darn well cheeky nation.

Quebec: The 1867 version of Let’s Make a Deal! Information that Canadians (particularly Albertans need to know)

Okay, today’s conversation may not be as thrilling as a convoy conspiracy or a TikTok rant about Trudeau’s socks, but it matters. Because no matter where you live in Canada, you will inevitably spend a lot of time talking about Quebec. Sometimes with admiration. Sometimes with resentment. Often with confusion.

Here’s the deal. Literally. Don’t shout at me and say I’m on Quebec’s side. I’m just providing a little more information so we can be informed when we act as advocates for our beautiful country.

Back in 1867, when Canada decided to become a thing, it was supposed to be a tidy little club of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Ontario. Quebec wasn’t really interested in being part of this little clique they were going to name Canada. But they needed Quebec. Strategically, geographically, and economically, Quebec was the keystone in the arch. At that time, the population of Ontario was only 1,600,000 and Quebec’s was 1,100,000. So those Fathers of Confederation made a deal. A constitutional one. Quebec could protect its language, its religion, its civil law system, and, crucially, it would get everything the rest of Canada got. Equal status. Equal opportunity. Equal headaches.

So when people say “Quebec gets special treatment,” the correct historical response is: no, Quebec gets what it negotiated. The rest of you just showed up later and signed the waiver. Now fast forward 158 years. Is Quebec different? Absolutely. But let’s not pretend the rest of Canada is just one beige wallpaper of sameness. If you think Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have the same vibe, you’ve never been to either. Quebec’s not the weird cousin at the family reunion, it’s the cousin who read the fine print and brought a lawyer.

Now, Alberta and Quebec will be clarifying their expectations in the coming days. ‘Danny’ has already laid down the rules of the game as written by her. Premier François Legault, the same guy who once flinched at the word “pipeline” like it was printed on a federal income tax return, is now saying his population is more open to energy corridors. Yes, that’s right. Quebec is not the immovable monolith that Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet pretends it is. Blanchet says a lot of things, but mostly the things that would keep him from losing even more seats.

Here’s where it may sound a little personal. Because, as you read my posts, remember that it is my personal perspective I write them from.

My husband is a French-Canadian, born and raised in small-town Quebec. His family didn’t really see themselves as part of Canada they saw themselves as Quebecois. That kind of terminal uniqueness ran deep. But my husband joined the Canadian Armed Forces, and he’s been gone from Quebec for decades. Today, as a technically bilingual pipeline consultant, he is often called on to work in Quebec so he can blend the white collar needs of the Calgary engineers and manage the Francophone Quebec workforce. And while he remains proudly French-Canadian, he now often feels as much like an outsider when he is there and as when he is home in Alberta; caught between two solitudes that both claim and reject him.

That contradiction lives in a lot of us. And if you spend time in Quebec, not just in the cafés of Montreal but in the towns, the villages, even up north where few Canadians know they’re crossing into Inuit territory, you start to see something beautiful. Yes, there are tensions. But there’s also a shared heartbeat. People who want to raise their families, laugh on long weekends, pay their bills, and feel like they matter. Strip away the language laws and the lawn signs, and you’ll find we’re not speaking so differently after all.

I grew up in Moncton, the only officially bilingual city in Canada. Think about that. It’s not Montreal, not Quebec City and not Sherbrooke. Not even in Quebec. It’s Moncton which is in New Brunswick. And I’m an Anglophone who grew up in that bilingual reality. Where we didn’t just tolerate French, we lived alongside it. It was messy. It was loud. But it worked. French and English, side by side, not just in signage but in life. That taught me something early on: that difference isn’t the problem. Dishonouring the deal is.

So now, as we move forward and debate pipelines, energy corridors, climate, transfers, and provincial autonomy, we need to come back to this basic truth: Quebec made a deal. And we agreed.

The challenge now isn’t “How do we build energy corridors in Quebec?” or “How do we save Alberta?” It’s how do we build Canada, on terms that reflect who we are today, without forgetting the deals that got us here.

And as we work our way through every province and territory in this sprawling, imperfect federation, we’ll find what we’ve always found: our differences are real, but so are our connections. And remember we made the deal with Quebec in 1867.

Alberta? Alberta didn’t even get a seat at the table until 1905, nearly four decades later. So if it feels like the rules were already written… well, they kind of were.

Okay, so I said I was only going to post a couple times a week after the election…you know, get back to work, reclaim some normalcy, maybe even clean the fridge. Well, that didn’t last long. Because there’s just too much to say, and frankly, not enough people saying it with facts, context, or even basic math.

So here I am, again. Because if we don’t start talking sense about Alberta and Canada, the loudest voices in the room will keep setting fire to the table and calling it a freedom rally. Alberta Voted. Canada Heard. So Why Are We Still Talking Separation?

Let’s start with facts, not flags. In the 2025 federal election, Alberta had approximately 3 million eligible voters, and turnout was 62.8%, so about 1.88 million votes were cast. Conservatives got 59.2% of those ballots. That’s 1.11 million votes, or 37.2% of the total eligible voter base.

Let that sink in. Only 37.2% of Albertans eligible to vote chose the party that many claim “represents all of Alberta.” And even within that 37%, many were not voting for separation; they were voting for tax relief, political change, or a familiar brand. Voting Conservative is not equal to voting to leave Canada. So when someone says, “Alberta wants out,” ask yourself: Did 63% of voters stay silent or vote against it, and still lose the narrative? And how many of the 37% you’re pointing to even support breaking up the country?

This number, 37.2%, is your new best friend. Tattoo it to your retinas. Because we’re going to need it every time this nonsense resurfaces.

I’ve lived in Alberta for 45 years. I’ve served in elected office. Raised kids. Paid taxes. Lived rural and urban areas. But I am also, without apology, a Canadian. That’s not a contradiction. That’s the point. I created Canada Strong and Free not to ignore Alberta’s real challenges, but to stop us from going off a constitutional cliff in a rage-fueled fever dream.

And yes, people outside Alberta are watching this, too. No, they won’t vote in a referendum. But yes, if Alberta separates, it impacts the entire country. Confederation isn’t a one-way exit ramp. It’s a national covenant.

Who’s Actually in This Conversation? Let’s sort the room. There are the definite Keepers. They may share political philosophies with most of us. They’re informed, curious, maybe upset, but they care. They want to understand. Hold them close even when they challenge us. There are the Maybes. They may have voted Conservative. Some like the idea of more autonomy. Some distrust Ottawa. But they’re open to dialogue. Don’t write them off. And then there is the Chaos Crew. They scream. They meme. They misquote the Constitution. They claim “everyone wants out,” with zero facts to back it. They’re not here to build Alberta; they want to burn it down and blame Ottawa for the ashes. We won’t change their mind.

Time Is Not on Our Side. This province is already on fire, and not just metaphorically: measles outbreaks, cancer patients delayed or denied care, schools bursting at the seams, communities begging for infrastructure.

And yet we’re talking about… separation? Separation isn’t just a distraction; it’s a delay tactic. And while we fight imaginary wars, real people are dying. We need an Alberta that works for all of us, not just the loudest ones

So what comes next? If you’ve read this far, you’re probably not the problem. You’re someone who wants Alberta to thrive, in Canada, with Canada, for Canada.

I encourage you to follow this group, Canada Strong and Free. You’ll find facts here. Not fury. And if I don’t know something, I’ll point you to people who do — real people, not rage pages. This is how we take the narrative back: We speak up. We show up. We stay grounded in reality. Because the next time someone says, “The West wants out,” I’ll say: Only 37% of Albertans voted for the party you think is the West, and a lot of them just wanted a damn tax break. Check your math. Then check your priorities. And anyway if I had a nickel for every time someone yelled “the West wants out” without understanding how Confederation works, I’d have enough to fix rural health care, or at least fund a therapy goat for every MLA at risk of another tantrum.

It Was Just a Ride to the Polls. But It Meant Everything.

I hadn’t planned to post again so soon. I’ve been trying to limit myself to a few a week. But a conversation with a close friend in the Greater Toronto Area won’t leave me alone. It’s not about political parties or platforms. It’s about democracy, and the quiet acts that hold it together.

My friend had volunteered a few hours of her time to help a local candidate by giving rides to people who otherwise couldn’t get to the polls. No fanfare. No hashtags. Just service. And what she shared with me needs to be shared.

She picked up an elderly Greek woman in her 80s, living far from the polling station, who likely wouldn’t have made it without help. She brought a newcomer family, likely Muslim, led by a woman in a full burqa, to cast what might have been their first Canadian vote. And she went into one of the roughest housing complexes in the area to pick up a young Black man, someone she was nervous to meet at first, alone in a part of town known for violence. She waited longer than expected. Her anxiety kicked in. And then he showed up, kind, thoughtful, engaged, and they ended up having a warm, honest conversation.

Each of these stories hit me hard. And they should hit all of us.

Because none of this is theoretical. None of this is about talking points or party lines. This is about real people, doing something real, in a country that gives us the right to participate, and, for many, the will to do better than the last chapter of their story.

There was one more moment that she hesitated to tell me, but I’m so glad she did. My friend is Jewish. When the woman in the burqa, speaking in a language my friend didn’t understand, turned to ask her if she spoke any other languages, my friend panicked for a second. She worried that if she mentioned Hebrew or identified herself as Jewish, it might create tension, might disrupt the fragile harmony in that moment. But here’s the thing: difference didn’t matter. What mattered was that, for a few minutes, they were just two Canadian women, one helping the other exercise her democratic right. It was community in its truest, most honest form.

So if you’re feeling discouraged today, maybe upset by the outcome of the election, or tempted by the talk of division or separation, I want you to think of those three people. An elderly woman who may have cast her final vote. A new citizen who may have cast her first. A young man who chose hope over cynicism, even when the odds weren’t in his favour.

And I want you to think of my friend, who thought she “hadn’t done much.” Because the truth is, she did everything. No one handed her a megaphone. No one gave her a podium. But in those few hours, she made democracy real — not in theory, but in action.

So no, you don’t need a flag on your truck. You don’t need to yell louder than everyone else online. You just need to show up — for someone else.

And to my friend: I promise you, those passengers will never forget the ride. And neither will I.

OUR CANADA! Today, post-election, here’s where I’m at. We have a Liberal minority government under Mark Carney. The voters made a choice, and it’s a choice for moving forward, not backwards.

And while a minority government shouldn’t be a bad thing, it only works if Parliament actually works, not if it’s a daily game of “how fast can we blow this thing up.”

I’m going to hope, in the spirit of positivity, that Mr. Poilievre meant it when he said he wanted to work together with Mr. Carney. I’m going to believe, until proven otherwise, that he sees the stakes here. Because there is no time to waste. We have serious security issues to face, strengthening our military, securing our northern border, and being ready in a world that is no longer as stable as the one many of us were lucky enough to be born into. Post-World War II, cushioned by alliances and a strong friendship with our neighbour to the south, we avoided the kind of fear much of the world lived with. But that world has changed.

We have urgent economic work ahead, from fighting tariffs and protecting Canadian jobs internationally, to dealing with housing, affordability, and cost-of-living pressures at home.

And now, we need to move: We need a Parliament sworn in, we need Cabinet ministers appointed, we need a government ready to govern and yes, the Conservative Party will have its own internal questions to sort out, but Canadians can’t afford to sit in limbo while they do.

Some things will move easily. Others will be much harder. But either way, the work must begin. There are important projects on the table. like the national corridors that Mr. Carney championed, corridors that would move resources like oil and gas, and help connect our country more deeply. But they will require real collaboration, including with Quebec.

So here’s my question for my fellow Albertans: Do we want to stand with the rest of Canada to build this future? Or do we want to be, as I’ve sometimes called it, terminally unique, so proud of being different that we lose sight of what’s possible together?

Terminal uniqueness won’t build pipelines, open markets, protect jobs, or grow our country.

And here’s another phrase I’ve often used: Everyone loves to talk about “collaboration.” But real collaboration must end with something else: Action. Not just conversation. Not just sitting in a room feeling good about talking. So let’s create our own word.
Collabor’action’. I like that made up word. We don’t have four years to waste whining or re-fighting this election. We have a country to secure, an economy to rebuild, and a future to prepare for.

And here’s what else I want to say today: Let’s have engaged conversations. Let’s talk about the things that matter. Will I be a little edgy sometimes? Probably. Will I lean centrist, sometimes slightly left? Likely. But the point is: we can all find somewhere to sit on that line, and work together.

A country is a family. And no real family is made up of identical people. Some are career-driven, some stay at home. Some are finance whizzes, some are artists. Some live by numbers; others live by stories. And somehow, in the mess and beauty of it, they sit down at the same table and find a way to stay together. Sometimes pretending. Sometimes pushing through. But staying.

Canada is no different. We are messy. We are complicated. We have sharp corners and soft spots. But we’re ‘ours’. And we have a chance, right now, to show our kids, our grandkids, and ourselves what it looks like when people choose the hard, beautiful work of getting along.

Because right now, Canadians need to be the winners. Not a party. Not a leader. Not a slogan. ‘Canadians.’

And if any brilliant analogies hit me when my brain isn’t fried from the last few days, I promise I’ll bring them to you.
But for now, I just want to say: Thank you. Thank you to everyone who commented, shared, agreed, or disagreed respectfully with me these past weeks. Let’s keep talking. I won’t be posting every day (I do still have a life to run), but this conversation is just getting started. Let’s stay upbeat. Let’s stay a little bit utopian. And let’s stay committed to being the great country we already know we can be.

And one last thing: If you’re still stewing about who won, remember this: History doesn’t hand out trophies for temper tantrums. It hands them out to the ones who build something better. So pick up a hammer, not a grudge. Canada needs builders, not sore losers.

Last night, I lay awake with a heavy weight on my heart. When I say that, I’m speaking about the tragedy involving the Filipino community in Vancouver.

In my work, I have the privilege of speaking with people across Canada’s incredible tapestry, people who are generous with their stories, their thoughts, their cultures. And many times, that has included the Filipino diaspora.

Recently, my older son had a Filipino family move in next door. He mentioned they’d invited him to a gathering and asked me what he should bring. I told him honestly: you don’t need to bring anything. If there’s one thing you’ll learn living next to a Filipino family, it’s that food will be abundant, laughter will be abundant, and community will be abundant. They welcome everyone.

And last night, my mind stayed with them, and with so many others, as I thought about what this tragedy means. When something like this happens, we first hear the numbers, how many people, when it happened, where it happened, how it happened. But at first, we don’t truly feel it. It takes time before you sit with what those numbers really mean. The long-term heartbreak. The ripple effects that will last lifetimes.

This celebration in Vancouver was not just any gathering. It was in honour of Lapu-Lapu, an Indigenous leader in the Philippines who fought against colonization. And when I think about that, about the struggle against colonization, I realize how deeply connected their story is to the one that continues here in Canada for our own Indigenous peoples. The pain. The resilience. The ongoing fight for dignity, respect, and true belonging.

And now, inevitably, there will be political noise, arguments about whether this tragedy fits one narrative or another. Crime. Mental health. Security. But right now? None of that should matter. Because what happened is a tragedy. Full stop.

As we move toward April 28, 2025, a date when all Canadians are called upon to make choices about leadership and the future we want to build, I find myself even more deeply grounded in what matters most. It is the celebration and protection of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Those values have been the starting point for my reflections over these past months, and they are where my heart and conscience firmly remain.

Leadership is not just about policies. It is about how we hold space for every person who calls this country home. It is about compassion, respect, and the understanding that our strength comes from lifting each other up, especially in moments of grief and uncertainty.

The people at that festival might not have all been Filipino. Because that’s the beauty of this place we live in: We share cultures. We share food, music, celebrations. We experience the world without ever needing to leave Canada, because the world lives here. We are richer because of it.

Even with a hurting heart, I am so deeply grateful to live in this country of incredible, resilient diversity. And my heart remains with all those whose lives have been forever changed, as they move forward with courage into a new and difficult reality.

Today, I feel something deep in my heart. It’s not simple. It’s a mix of fear and hope, powerful and stubborn hope. A wise man once told me that hope is not a feeling, it is a possibility to live into. Those words have stayed with me through some of the hardest, and some of the most beautiful, moments of my life. And today, standing on the edge of this choice for our country, I know they are more true than ever.

Hope alone isn’t enough. It needs structure. It needs discipline. It needs leadership steady enough to carry it forward. Because if we can blend the abstract beauty of hope with the strong hands of purpose and skill, then we will not only save what matters most, we will build something even stronger.

Election Day tomorrow is not about the past. It’s about the future we choose, and the future we build, together. Canada has never been defined by anger or fear. We have been defined by what we build. By the bridges we forge. By the ground we cover. By the skies we dare to cross.

We have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies through war and peace. We have led not with rage, but with courage. Not with bluster, but with principle. And as we face a more fractured world today, we must remember: Canada’s strength is not in how loud we shout.

It’s in how steady we stand, and how clearly we chart our course forward. We will need leadership that understands that. Leadership that knows calm hands fly through storms better than shaking fists. Leadership that thinks three steps ahead, not just one news cycle ahead.

Being immersed in aviation my entire life has taught me that: You don’t hand the controls to someone who panics at the first turbulence. You trust the pilot who steadies the course, stays calm under pressure, and never forgets the lives depending on every decision made at the controls. That’s the leadership Canada needs now.

More than sixty years ago, President John F. Kennedy stood in our Parliament and spoke of Canada’s strength, our independence, our leadership in the world. He reminded us that “what unites us is far greater than what divides us.” He saw in us what we must see in ourselves again: A nation capable of leading, not just surviving. Tomorrow, we face a choice between two very different paths. We can choose a manic, confrontational style that sees enemies in every corner. Or we can choose calm, steady leadership — grounded in knowledge, principle, and real strength. Mark Carney brings that strength.

Pierre Poilievre does not.

I don’t say this lightly. I say it as a parent, a grandparent, a fierce woman, and a Canadian who knows that steady hands, not shouting matches, guide people safely through uncertainty because leadership matters. Tone matters. Empathy matters.

Being progressive doesn’t mean being reckless. It means recognizing that empathy is not weakness, it’s the discipline and responsibility that good governance demands. It’s the steady eye on the horizon, no matter how rough the winds.

Canada is not broken. It is a house weathered by storms, needing care, yes, but standing strong because of the hands and hearts that built it. We don’t abandon a home when it needs repairs. We rebuild it.

Tomorrow, we choose whether to keep building or to tear down. We choose whether to steady the course or crash it into chaos. We choose whether hope leads or whether fear does.

We choose leadership. We choose the future. And in that choice, we choose Canada itself.

Choose wisely. Choose boldly. Choose the future.

Tomorrow isn’t just another day. It’s the moment we either lift this country higher, or watch it lose altitude from which we may never recover.

Freedom Isn’t What You Think It Is — And We’re Running Out of Time

Last night, something happened that really disturbed me. A post I had made, about the re-energizing of the “51st state” conversation and the growing influence of American politics on Canadian sovereignty, was seen by thousands. It was shared over 1,500 times.

And then, without warning, it was gone. Deleted. For everyone who shared it? Also gone. I contacted Facebook. No flagged content. No community violations. Yet the post had disappeared, like it had never existed.

Apparently, a grandma living on the Canadian prairies, tapping away on her laptop, is now considered a threat. Are those Pierre Polievre supporting empire-building politicians south of the border really that fragile?

But people began to give me a crash course in something called shadow banning. This is done not by hackers from some villain’s lair, but by tech giants and political billionaires who once proudly sat at Donald Trump’s inauguration. And that’s when it hit me: this is what real loss of freedom looks like. Not masks. Not vaccines. Not temporary closures. This.

We need to have an honest conversation about freedom. Too many people were fed a steady diet of outrage, convincing them that being asked to protect others during a pandemic was some kind of tyranny. Spoiler: it wasn’t. You weren’t in a gulag. You weren’t denied your voice. You weren’t stripped of your right to criticize every step of the way, often loudly, rudely, and inaccurately.

Real loss of freedom? It’s when your words are silenced for political convenience. When a young lady wearing a t-shirt supporting trans rights is removed under threat of arrest from a Pierre Poilievre rally. It’s when women lose the right to control their bodies. It’s when governments dictate who you can love, what books you can read, and what parts of your history you’re allowed to know. It’s when social media platforms, those we trusted to connect us, quietly decide who gets to exist online.

That’s not fearmongering. That’s now. And when I look at how fast “freedom” in the U.S. was twisted into a tool of hate, censorship, and fear, I know exactly what’s at stake if we let the same forces take hold here.

Let’s be absolutely clear: I’m not talking about the fake “freedom” paraded in a cloud of diesel fumes and angry slogans. I’m talking about real freedom, the kind that a Liberal government under Mark Carney would actually fight to protect: Freedom to speak your mind without government interference. Freedom to make your own medical decisions without political meddling. Freedom to live your life, love who you love, and build your future without asking permission. Freedom to vote in real, open elections, not ones rigged by billionaires and bots.

The version Pierre Poilievre and the convoy crowd are peddling. That’s not freedom. That’s marketing for a world where only the angriest voices survive, and the rest of us get shoved out of the conversation. Freedom is not convenience. Freedom is not cruelty. Freedom is not the right to endanger others just because you’re feeling inconvenienced.

Real freedom is fragile. Real freedom is responsibility. Real freedom is being able to live your truth, even when it threatens someone else’s power. Real freedom is the spirit behind the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not just for the loudest, the angriest, or the wealthiest, but for every single one of us.

Maybe that post removal last night wasn’t a defeat. Maybe it was the best thing that could have happened. Because it reminded me, and should remind you, that freedom isn’t comfortable.
It’s messy. It’s loud. It’s stubborn. And sometimes the recognition of losing can be from something as simple as a Facebook post. Freedom isn’t honking your horn until you get your way. It’s standing your ground when someone with power tells you to sit down and shut up. And frankly, this may be the single most important reason I am doing this. To have people recognize that slippery slope on freedom loss is squickly turning into a landslide in the US.

And when even a prairie grandma becomes “too dangerous to tolerate,” you know exactly who’s afraid of the truth, and why. Just imagine how scared they’ll be when millions of Canadians stand up and vote for real leadership. There is only one person on that ballot who understands that freedom isn’t a tantrum, it’s a responsibility. Only Mark Carney can provide the direction, the protection, and the future we deserve.

So let them ban. Let them censor. Let them throw every dirty trick they have. We’re still here. We’re still fighting. And we know exactly what, and who, is worth fighting for.

Our freedom isn’t a slogan. It’s our future. It’s not for sale. Mark Carney knows what real freedom means, and he will stand up for these Rights and Freedoms when it matters most.
Not just when it’s easy. Not just when it’s popular. But when it’s necessary.

I posted this early this morning-it had been shared 1550 and suddenly it’s gone. No word from Facebook nothing. Something nefarious-I have been banning people by the hour. Someone complained?

If you want to know who Donald Trump wants running Canada, look no further, because he just made it crystal clear.

The “51st state” comment? That wasn’t a slip. It was a message, strategic, intentional, and deliberately revived. And it didn’t come out yesterday, it came last week, when Trump’s press secretary, Carolyn Leavitt (yes, the one with the smug, deadpan delivery of a Stepford intern), made sure to remind us that the Trump–Carney phone call never really went away.

This wasn’t a leak. It was a move because Trump needs a win. He told the world he’d fix Putin in 24 hours, that he’d solve the Middle East in a week, and he had “a great relationship” with Xi Jinping. And what has he delivered? Nothing but chaos and campaign hats. He needs an easy victory. Something symbolic. Something he can frame as dominance.
Enter: Canada. To Trump, we’re low-hanging fruit. And he wants someone sitting in the Prime Minister’s Office who will let him pluck that fruit without a fuss. That someone is Pierre Poilievre.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Trump sees Poilievre as manageable, a smart-mouth lightweight with a desperate need to win and a flexible relationship with facts. Poilievre doesn’t intimidate Trump. He excites him because he’s someone who’ll trade sovereignty for applause.

Now let’s talk about the man Trump doesn’t want to deal with: Mark Carney. Carney is no pushover. He has run not one, but two central banks. He’s stared down financial crises. He’s negotiated at the global table. And here’s what really matters: he can’t be manipulated. Trump sees that, and it makes him nervous. Because Carney plays chess. Trump plays checkers, blindfolded, with a marker.

But here’s where the contrast gets really real.

Mark Carney faced the press yesterday, and it was not pretty. He stood there, took the questions, and didn’t flinch. He didn’t dodge, didn’t hide, didn’t throw out talking points or disappear behind a staffer. It was uncomfortable. It was raw. And he showed up anyway.

Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre continues to run his campaign like a high-security bunker.
He controls messaging with the same clenched fist Stephen Harper once did, and let’s not pretend we don’t remember how that went. Conservative candidates across the country are refusing to speak to the media. Why? Because they’ve been told not to. This isn’t speculation, this is happening in real time. Today. In 2025. This is how it works when messaging is centralized, and democracy is optional. This is how it worked under Harper. It’s how it would work under Poilievre. And honestly? It annoys the hell out of me to turn on my TV and see that ad. You know the one. Stephen Harper, staring down the camera, said: I employed two people who are running in this election: Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre. Only one of them I’d hire again. And every time I see it, I want to yell at the screen: Then why didn’t you promote Pierre? Why did you sideline him for a decade? Because what Stephen Harper did do was nominate Mark Carney for the Order of Canada. And now we’re supposed to believe Carney isn’t qualified, but Pierre is?

It’s gaslighting at scale. And a disturbing number of people are buying it.

So I want to speak directly to a specific group here:

If you’re undecided but leaning Liberal, does this shift anything for you?
This question isn’t for the forever-Poilievre crowd, and it’s not for people like me who are already solidly in Carney’s corner. This is for those of you still sitting on the edge of the diving board.

Do you see it now? The media manipulation. The foreign influence. The fear Trump has of a smart Canadian leader who won’t kiss his ring? Because this isn’t about a phrase. It’s about who’s holding the pins, and who’s holding the strings. Donald Trump doesn’t want Mark Carney leading Canada. And frankly, that tells me everything I need to know.

So ask yourself this: do you want the Prime Minister who Donald Trump can control, or the one he’s terrified of? Because I’ll tell you right now: If Trump wants a puppet, he hopes we pick Pierre. But if Canada wants a Prime Minister, we better pick Mark.

Three days. Eyes wide open. Don’t let the curtain close on this country.