Ron Toonders

Husband, father, robot dairy farmer, cash cropper.

[Dan Knight @DanKnightMMA]

On Wednesday night, in Montreal, the leaders of Canada’s major federal parties gathered for the first official debate of the 2025 election campaign. At center stage stood Mark Carney, the newly installed Liberal leader and banker-turned-politician; Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative leader and longtime critic of the Ottawa swamp; Jagmeet Singh, the NDP’s socialist showman; and Yves-François Blanchet, the Bloc Québécois leader, Quebec nationalist, and occasional voice of reason.

And what unfolded over two hours wasn’t just a policy discussion—it was a full-blown national identity crisis.

Because this wasn’t a debate about tweaks to tax rates or transit plans. No, this was a live autopsy of what decades of bureaucratic rule, foreign appeasement, and soft authoritarianism have done to what used to be one of the freest, most prosperous countries on Earth.

At the center of it all, of course, was Donald Trump. Because nothing sends Canada’s political class into full-blown panic mode faster than an American president who doesn’t care about their cocktail party feelings. The question was simple: what do we do now that Trump’s imposing tariffs and reminding Canada that, economically, it’s not the big dog at the table?

And the answers? Revealing.

Let’s start with Pierre Poilievre. He stood tall. Calm, direct, and for once, not trying to appease the Ottawa gallery. He said it straight: cut the red tape, open up Canada’s energy sector, build our own future. Imagine that. A leader who believes in self-reliance. Who thinks that maybe—just maybe—Canada should act like a sovereign country, not a fragile vassal state begging for American handouts. That’s not just bold, it’s rational. That’s leadership.

Because when Trump looks north, he sees a weak, overregulated economy that won’t even develop its own resources. Meanwhile, look at North Dakota—booming, energy-rich, full of young people working real jobs and building families. Why? Because they had the guts to tell the green lobby to take a hike and start drilling. Canada could do the same, if it had leadership. Poilievre seems to be the only one who gets that.

Then there’s Mark Carney, Trudeau’s replacement—though let’s be honest, it’s just a new puppet with better tailoring. Carney said we need to “diversify our trade relationships.” Okay, genius—where? China? The EU? Who’s going to buy when your government’s killing industry at home? Carney sounded like a bureaucrat who wandered in from a World Economic Forum breakout session. And maybe that’s because… he did.

He’s not leading Canada. He’s managing it. Managing the slow decay of a once-great nation into a bland, overtaxed theme park for international investors.

Yves-François Blanchet had a moment—defensive, yes, but practical. He didn’t pretend Trump was going away. He didn’t peddle fantasies about magical new trade partners. He said: let’s protect Quebec’s industries, let’s not pretend this isn’t serious. For a separatist, the man almost sounded like a nationalist tonight. Imagine that.

And then, finally—Jagmeet Singh, the socialist barista with a pension. The man who has literally spent the last three years propping up Trudeau’s authoritarian disaster now wants to spend more, tax more, and hire more government workers. What’s his plan for Trump’s trade war? More nurses. Because nothing says “strategic economic response” like another bloated public sector union.

Political Grifter vs. Career Politician

Now, the second act of tonight’s Canadian leaders’ debate turned into exactly what you’d expect when you lock a globalist banker, a career bureaucrat, a socialist demagogue, and a Quebec nationalist in a room and hand them microphones: a war of words over who can manage the decline of the country slightly more politely.

The real showdown? Mark Carney vs. Pierre Poilievre—a political grifter versus a career politician who, love him or hate him, actually wants Canada to win.

Let’s start with Poilievre, because he didn’t flinch. Again. He doubled down on a Canada-first message: fix domestic policy, cut the red tape strangling small businesses, and get government out of the way. That’s a bold move in a country where bureaucrats outnumber builders and where Trudeau spent a decade training Canadians to beg government for permission to live.

And then, predictably, out comes Jagmeet Singh—waving the tired old “you’re going to privatize healthcare” boogeyman like a toddler with a Halloween mask. Pierre handled it like a grown-up: “That’s make-believe, Jagmeet.” And it is. Singh has no argument, just slogans. He’s like a broken vending machine that only dispenses public sector spending and envy politics.

Now Carney—oh, Carney—he tried to talk tough. Claimed he knows how to negotiate. Right. You know who else thought that? The entire global banking sector—right before they all jumped ship from Carney’s laughable GFANZ climate finance alliance, because he was pushing policies that bordered on antitrust violations. His idea of negotiation? Break the law, then act surprised when people leave the room.

He tried to pivot to more EU trade deals—because apparently what Canada needs right now is more trade with the collapsing European Union and less with the country that buys 70% of our exports. Genius.

But the moment that really landed? Yves-François Blanchet, the Bloc leader, stepped up and torched Carney. Called him out for negotiating tax havens, not trade deals. Asked the obvious question: “How are you going to negotiate for Canada when you can’t even negotiate with another party in your own Parliament?” Carney—who’s been PM for a whole month—actually tried to play the rookie card. “I’ve only been Prime Minister for a month!”

Sorry, Mark—no points for showing up to work. That’s not an accomplishment. That’s the job.

Then Carney bragged that he got all the premiers to sign an interprovincial trade deal. Again—this is something any Prime Minister with a pulse could pull off. That’s not leadership, it’s paper-pushing.

Pierre didn’t let him off the hook. Reminded Canadians that Carney’s party has been in power for 10 years. That it was their anti-energy policies—which Carney supports—that chased away investors, strangled Alberta, and handed our energy independence over to foreign interests. This isn’t just about incompetence. It’s about deliberate sabotage.

Even Singh jumped in—briefly tearing his eyes off Pierre—to slam Carney for abandoning workers. Which, ironically, he’s not wrong about. Carney spent the better part of a decade flying around the world giving speeches while working-class Canadians got crushed under carbon taxes and foreign-owned green scams.

Then Carney tried his big closer: “We need to fight with counter-tariffs!” No tax cuts. Just tariffs and “strategic planning.” Translation: more taxes, more bureaucracy, more control.

Pierre fires back, plain and simple: “You want to raise taxes.” Carney scrambles: “But I’ve only just arrived!” And again, Poilievre reminds him—you’ve been running the economy from behind the curtain for a decade. You advised Trudeau. You built this mess. Now you want a fourth term in power? Forget it.

And what does Jagmeet say in response to all this? That “billionaires and millionaires will benefit from tax cuts.” Because to Jagmeet, the biggest threat to Canada isn’t inflation, energy shortages, or American tariffs—it’s some guy in Alberta who might get to keep more of his paycheck.

Strawberries, Cheap Wine, and Political Cosplay

So, imagine you're watching your country crumble under inflation, job losses, and foreign trade wars… and the moderator thinks the most pressing question is:
“What U.S. products do you no longer buy?”

Seriously. That’s the question. Not “How do we protect Canadian sovereignty?” Not “How do we fix the housing crisis?” But “What’s in your fridge?” You almost have to laugh.

And it went about as well as you'd expect.

Yves-François Blanchet, never one to waste a setup, goes straight for the jugular. He fires a shot at Mark Carney and says he buys his own strawberries—a reference to that spectacular moment a few weeks back when Carney, asked about food prices, looked confused and said he didn’t know what strawberries cost… because his help buys them.

That’s not a gaffe. That’s a window into the soul of a man who has never stood in a checkout line behind a working mother trying to stretch $40.

Then Carney, in true “trying too hard” fashion, says he no longer buys U.S. wine or alcohol. That’s it. No Miller Lite for Mark. No Californian cabernet. Because that’s what really sticks it to America—banning the box wine at your lakeside estate. Give me a break.

This is what happens when an elitist banker tries to cosplay as a nationalist. It’s fake. It’s hollow. It’s laughable.

Now here comes Jagmeet Singh, reaching for the “everyman” card like his life depends on it. He leans in, lowers his voice, and says, “I cook at home. I buy my own groceries.” Wow. How brave. Does he also floss and remember to hydrate?

It’s such an obvious “pick me” move—desperate, overcompensating, and so transparently fake that even the lighting guy probably rolled his eyes. Singh isn’t a working-class hero—he’s a millionaire in designer suits trying to LARP as Tommy Douglas.

Then we get to Poilievre, and he’s not playing. He takes a well-earned swipe at Carney:
“I actually know what strawberries cost.”
He says it with a laugh, because at this point, even Pierre knows this question is a joke. He’s enjoying the dogpile on Carney, and why shouldn’t he? The man walked in with a crown and left with fruit salad on his face.

Poilievre then drops the mic with this:
“I buy Canadian beef.”
Short. Sharp. Honest. No overacting. No virtue signaling. Just a quiet reminder that this guy actually eats the food that comes from the country he wants to lead.

Housing Crisis, Food Prices, and Fantasy Economics

So, the moderator finally asks the question that should’ve opened the debate:
“What does the future look like for young people?”
A good question. Because if you’re under 40 in Canada, chances are you’ll never own a home, you’ll never pay off your debt, and you’ll spend most of your adult life living under government control just to survive.

Why? Because of the policies pushed by the very people on that debate stage.

Let’s start with Yves-François Blanchet. When asked how to fix housing for young people, he gives the usual soft socialist fluff:
“Public money, reduce speculation, make housing affordable.”
Okay, but what about supply and demand? You can’t subsidize your way out of a housing shortage. There aren’t enough homes. Period. No amount of Band-Aid spending will fix that. And the Bloc doesn’t want more immigration restrictions or zoning reform, so their plan is basically “do nothing, but nicely.”

Then comes Pierre Poilievre, and this is where things get real.

He doesn’t dodge. He doesn’t generalize. He blames the housing crisis directly on Mark Carney and the Liberal Party’s failed economic policies. And he’s right.
It was Trudeau’s government—advised by Carney—that pumped the money supply, strangled cities with red tape, and created a real estate bubble that only foreign investors and political insiders could afford to live in.

Poilievre lays it out:

Cut income taxes by 15%

Eliminate the GST on new homes

Incentivize cities to speed up building permits

That’s not utopian. That’s basic economics. Lower taxes, more supply, fewer roadblocks. It’s a plan that might actually work.

Now, here comes Carney, the man who helped design the disaster we’re living through, suddenly pretending he’s the solution. He says “we need more money in Canadians’ pockets.” Great! Except it’s his party that’s been emptying them for ten years.

Then he trots out the usual Liberal “cost of living” trophies:

Dental care

Pharmacare

Daycare

That’s not putting money in your pocket—that’s expanding the state’s control over your life. It’s like being robbed at gunpoint and handed back a free toothbrush as consolation.

Carney even mirrors Pierre’s GST cut, but without the conviction. Then he says he’ll “double housing starts.” Right. Like that’ll happen when every major infrastructure project takes a decade to approve and you still have Trudeau-era regulations choking developers out of the market.

And finally, we get to Jagmeet Singh—and this is where the clown show begins.

Jagmeet doesn’t believe this is a supply issue. No. He says the problem is greedy corporations, particularly grocery chains. And his solution?
Price caps on food. That’s right—he wants to turn Loblaws into the Soviet breadline. Because when prices are too high, the answer is clearly more government control, more intervention, and more chaos.

But it gets worse—he wants to ban corporations from owning houses.
You heard that right. Ban corporate ownership. That’s not reform—that’s economic vandalism. Sure, let's ban companies from building or managing rental units, then act shocked when the housing supply collapses even further

The Carbon Tax Con: Power, Pipelines, and Political Amnesia

So let’s talk about the carbon tax, and the broader war on Canada’s energy sector that’s disguised as climate policy.

Now, if you watched the debate, you saw it—every party pretending they have the answer to Canada’s energy future, while dancing around one simple truth: you cannot power a G7 economy on green dreams and windmills.

Let’s start with Mark Carney—or as we call him here, Carbon Tax Carney.

This is the guy who spent the last decade in high towers lecturing the world on ESG compliance and “climate risk,” and now suddenly he’s out here talking about expediting pipeline permits and exporting natural gas to Europe. Why? Because he finally figured out what you already knew: green energy doesn't heat homes in Berlin during a Russian embargo.

He says he wants economic sovereignty—by sending Canadian oil and gas to Europe, to reduce Russian and American leverage. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It should. Because Pierre Poilievre said it first, six months ago, and got smeared as a climate denier for it.

But now Carney’s parroting the same line, while pretending he just discovered it on the flight to Alberta.

And when he was pressed on this sudden conversion, Blanchet called him out. He said Carney’s turning into a Conservative—and he’s right. But not in a good way. Carney’s not principled. He’s opportunistic. He’s pivoting right on resource development to win the West, while trying to keep one foot in Quebec by whispering sweet nothings about renewables and keeping Bill-C-69 the anti-pipeline bill which makes investment in this country in energy projects near impossible.

Let me tell you what that’s called: political grifting.

Then there’s Poilievre, who actually came in swinging. Repeal Bill C-69—the Trudeau-era environmental straitjacket that’s blocked pipelines, dams, mines, and LNG terminals. Pierre says he’ll unleash Canadian resources—not for ESG points—but to make this country energy dominant and economically sovereign.

And he’s right.

He’s not just talking about pipelines—he’s talking about jobs, exports, and national independence. But of course, that triggered Blanchet and Singh, who whined that Poilievre is harming the planet.

Now Singh, for his part, barely showed up for the energy debate. His entire pitch was that corporations are bad and we need green energy for social justice. Whatever that means. No specifics. No strategy. Just vibes and a few recycled slogans from the David Suzuki Foundation.

Meanwhile, Blanchet did what he always does—preach hydro and renewables, bash fossil fuels, and act like Quebec doesn’t need the rest of Canada. He said no new pipelines, no new oil, and took shots at Ottawa’s neglect of Quebec’s aluminum sector—one of the greenest in the world. And he defended his 2013 decision to approve Enbridge Line 9’s reversal… because even Blanchet knows that sometimes oil has to move.

But here’s the plot twist: a new poll came out showing 74% of Quebecers support pipelines. That’s right—three out of four people in Quebec support building energy infrastructure. And Blanchet’s response? “I’ll have a nice evening.”
Translation? He doesn’t care. His brand is environmental posturing—not economic reality.

So where does this leave us?

Carney’s now cosplaying as a Conservative while still promising $500 billion in mystery investments and whispering sweet nothings to the green crowd.

Poilievre is the only one promising to tear down the bureaucratic walls and build things.

Blanchet is playing both sides—defending pipelines when it suits him, attacking them when it doesn’t.

And Singh? He’s too busy trying to ban grocery profits to notice the country needs power.

Foreign Aid, Fake Compassion, and Funding Our Enemies

So let’s talk about foreign aid—one of the few topics in the 2025 debate that didn’t get the air time it deserved on stage, but exploded in the press scrum afterward, where truth is harder to contain.

And what was revealed? That some of these people running for Prime Minister don’t want to protect Canada, don’t want to secure your border, and definitely don’t want to prioritize Canadians.

Let’s start with Pierre Poilievre. He came out swinging in the press scrum, not during the debate—probably because the moderators didn’t have the guts to raise the question. He said he’d cut foreign aid, starting with the $250 million given to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank—a fund that has backed China’s imperial ambitions. You know, the same China that’s buying up Canadian farmland, infiltrating our elections, and threatening Taiwan. That China.

He also pledged to cut funding to UNRWA—the UN agency that employs Hamas-linked operatives and was caught, according to multiple verified intelligence reports, participating in the October 7 Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians. If that doesn’t qualify for a funding freeze, I don’t know what does.

Poilievre’s point was clear: Canadian tax dollars shouldn’t fund hostile regimes or terrorist-linked organizations. If only that were controversial.

Because of course, it was.

Mark Carney, true to form, rushed to the defense of Canada’s globalist aid apparatus. He didn’t deny the money went to China or UNRWA. Instead, he gave us the classic elite line:
“We need foreign aid to maintain diplomatic leverage.”

That’s not foreign policy—that’s appeasement dressed up as strategy. Carney argued that cutting aid would reduce Canada’s global standing, especially during trade negotiations with Trump.

Let me get this straight: you want to bribe the global community with Canadian tax dollars, just so they’ll be nicer to us in trade talks? That’s weakness. That’s buying friends. That’s the foreign policy of a vassal state, not a sovereign nation.

Then there’s Jagmeet Singh, who accused Poilievre of lacking “compassion” and “virtue signaling with his big heart.” That’s rich. Because nothing screams compassion like taking $250 million from laid-off Canadian workers and handing it to the UN’s bureaucratic disaster factory.

He defended aid to Palestinians broadly, with zero mention of UNRWA’s links to terrorism, zero policy specifics, and zero accountability. Singh wants to be the face of social justice—but what he’s actually doing is masking bad foreign policy behind guilt-ridden language.

If you’re more outraged by a Canadian politician saying “cut aid” than by the fact that UN agencies helped carry out a terror attack, your priorities are broken. Full stop.

Blanchet, as usual, played the “Quebec above all” card. He vaguely supported aid “within a two-state solution,” talked about Quebec’s role on the world stage, and didn’t address aid to China or UNRWA directly. But his party’s record shows support for the UN’s 0.7% aid target, which means billions sent abroad before Quebec’s own seniors can get a hospital bed.

He wants sovereignty for Quebec but open spigots for international NGOs. A contradiction, but one dressed in a French accent, so the media won’t touch it.

Final Thoughts

Let me say this plainly: what we witnessed in this Canadian federal leaders' debate wasn’t just political theater—it was a referendum on the soul of the country. This wasn’t about left versus right, Liberal versus Conservative, or federalism versus separatism. This was about one question: Is Canada still a sovereign, self-respecting nation—or just a brand managed by bureaucrats in Ottawa and bankers in Davos?

Mark Carney came in pretending to be the adult in the room, the steady hand, the banker-warrior for the middle class. What we got was an unelected elitist trying to sell pipeline expansion with one hand while clinging to the Liberal climate cult with the other. His solution to every crisis was the same: spend more, centralize more, control more. He wants to build a half-trillion-dollar housing empire, manage your kids' daycare, and oversee international trade deals while telling you he’s not Trudeau. But here’s the truth: he is Trudeau. Same ideology, same smug detachment, same loathing for actual working Canadians. Just better tailoring.

Jagmeet Singh, meanwhile, delivered another masterclass in political cosplay—draped in designer populism and overflowing with slogans. He whined about billionaires, blamed corporations for the grocery aisle, and treated every complex issue like a grievance TikTok. His housing plan? Government. His energy plan? Don’t build anything. His economic plan? Tax the rich and hope the numbers work out. It’s not policy—it’s performance art for a shrinking activist base that still thinks Venezuela had the right idea.

Yves-François Blanchet? Occasionally clever, occasionally delusional. He gave Carney a few well-deserved black eyes—especially when he exposed the pipeline flip-flop and the strawberry-price gaffe. But at the end of the day, he’s only running for Premier of Quebec—not Prime Minister of Canada. He doesn't believe in the country, and his entire act is premised on the idea that Quebec is above the mess he's campaigning in. Which makes him irrelevant outside his own bubble.

But then there was Pierre Poilievre. And whether you love him or hate him, he was the only person on that stage with a spine and a plan. He didn’t just attack the record—he named the names. He tied Carney directly to Trudeau’s decade of economic failure. He broke down Bill C-69 and exposed it for what it is—a death sentence for Canadian energy. He mocked the fake populism of Jagmeet Singh and swatted away the bureaucracy worship of the Liberals. He came armed with facts, policy, and receipts. And most importantly, he didn’t apologize—for loving this country, for defending resource workers, for demanding we stop sending billions to China, Hamas affiliates, or global bureaucracies.

This wasn’t just a good night for Poilievre. It was a warning shot to the political class: your monopoly on power, on truth, on what it means to be Canadian—is over.

So here’s my final thought. Canada is at a crossroads. One path leads to more red tape, more taxes, more control, and more decline—managed politely by people like Mark Carney. The other path leads to freedom, responsibility, prosperity, and sovereignty—championed unapologetically by Pierre Poilievre.

The choice couldn’t be clearer.

[DairyBot @AshtoniaCows]

@5151john Ours got picked up but it’s destination was changed from going east to going south into Toronto. Check your email, DFO sent instructions on what to do if your milk isn’t picked up!!

[Viva Frei @thevivafrei]

Let’s do our own poll:

Canadians, do you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose the Government of Canada using the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy Protest?

Please share for maximum visibility.

@globalnews @CTVNews @globeandmail

[Bell @Bell]

Device game 💪 at the Bell Red Carpet Viewing Deck 📸😍 Did you get a selfie with a celeb? If so, tell us who it’s with in the comments 👇 #TIFF22

[Ron Toonders @RonRnt]

@MdMcLean1 Rummer from late 60's-early 70's, Soft drink industry lobbied gov to make it illegal to sell single serve milk products in round containers or car manufacturers to make square cup holders. Wish I could find that info.

[Keean Bexte @TheRealKeean]

SHARE:
Convoy organizers hold first live press conference from an undisclosed location in Ottawa. #FreedomConvoy2022 https://t.co/0h0nYpzZ5a

[Ron Toonders @RonRnt]

This Belted Galloway escaped a local abatoir couple days ago. Saw it in my back field today in South Dundas. Heading south east. Use caution on County roads 8 or 18. She's not tame, also not crazy wild, I was able to get 30-40'from it. Should be eliminated before someone hits it.

[Ian McDonald @ian_d_mcdonald]

Farmers this is important! Another live lost to the farming family of Ontario in an on-road accident. The equipment was on unfamiliar road in Waterloo that is hilly, narrow, & busy with urban traffic. Avoid people in the buddy seat! Use your seat belts on the road if not always!

[Polaris McCracken @DavidSchill2]

How's your soil moisture situation?

Retweet please

[Frank Mitloehner @GHGGuru]

I never imagined a fast food campaign would kick off a global conversation around methane. Our video has reached 14K views across social media thanks to you. Can we reach 25K views? Pls RT to affect a livestock methane narrative based on facts not fiction. https://t.co/Vo6JRFRVVb

[Andrew vG 🇳🇱🚜\\\ @tenwattandrew]

How dry is it in #EasternOntario?

I have now reached the 'leave the truck windows open at night so it will rain' phasel

[Ron Toonders @RonRnt]

@VBFarms @MatthewPot @Bayer4CropsCA @DEKALB_Canada Corn 100%
Beans 100%
Dundas County

[Ron Toonders @RonRnt]

@BruglineFarms @phhermans 9mm Dundas County

[Farmer Amos 🐄🐄 @Wonny_108]

Take a look at our bit of fun with marshwood YFC passing the loo roll on 🚽 #yfcdoitbest

[Greg James @gregjames]

THIS THIS THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. THIS. Please watch and share. Brilliantly and simply put.

[Scottacular @Scottcrates]

Literally ever person in the United States needs to watch this.

PLEASE RETWEET

[Frank Mitloehner @GHGGuru]

Please pay attention:

[Don McGugan @DonMcGugan]

This land transacts at over $25,000 an acre. And it's just blowing away. Who leaves a classic car outside to rust? Who lets a Picasso to sit out in the sun? I don't get this. We have to be better.