Pierre Poilievre

After accepting it. After accepting it. Well, so the chronology that we're led to believe, based on sources who've spoken about it to the media... is that Carney agreed to the job. Trudeau went to Freeland days before she was to introduce her fall update and said, I'm going to be firing you to bring in Mark Carney.

After accepting it. After accepting it. Well, so the chronology that we're led to believe, based on sources who've spoken about it to the media... is that Carney agreed to the job. Trudeau went to Freeland days before she was to introduce her fall update and said, I'm going to be firing you to bring in Mark Carney.

And then when that blew up with her unexpected premature resignation, then Carney looked at it and said, I don't want any part of this. And he... crawled under his desk. And so he was happy to take the job when it looked like it was a clear path, but then when it was a messier path, he hid from it.

And then when that blew up with her unexpected premature resignation, then Carney looked at it and said, I don't want any part of this. And he... crawled under his desk. And so he was happy to take the job when it looked like it was a clear path, but then when it was a messier path, he hid from it.

And then when that blew up with her unexpected premature resignation, then Carney looked at it and said, I don't want any part of this. And he... crawled under his desk. And so he was happy to take the job when it looked like it was a clear path, but then when it was a messier path, he hid from it.

It's a good question.

It's a good question.

It's a good question.

Who would want to associate with these guys?

Who would want to associate with these guys?

Who would want to associate with these guys?

Look, he's going to try and distance himself now, but here's the problem. He signed on as Trudeau's economic advisor. It's an official role he holds today. Now, he's going to make one of two arguments. One, he's going to say, yes, in fact, I was his economic advisor, and therefore I am responsible for the $62 billion deficit and the catastrophic growth, the rising cost of living.

Look, he's going to try and distance himself now, but here's the problem. He signed on as Trudeau's economic advisor. It's an official role he holds today. Now, he's going to make one of two arguments. One, he's going to say, yes, in fact, I was his economic advisor, and therefore I am responsible for the $62 billion deficit and the catastrophic growth, the rising cost of living.

Look, he's going to try and distance himself now, but here's the problem. He signed on as Trudeau's economic advisor. It's an official role he holds today. Now, he's going to make one of two arguments. One, he's going to say, yes, in fact, I was his economic advisor, and therefore I am responsible for the $62 billion deficit and the catastrophic growth, the rising cost of living.

Or he's going to say, I wasn't really his advisor. I was just full of it. You know, he has to decide. Was he lying to everybody when he claimed he was Trudeau's advisor? Or was he telling the truth? And either way, he's got a major political problem that he is now totally inseparable from the Trudeau record. He supports the carbon tax. He supports the attack on our energy sector.

Or he's going to say, I wasn't really his advisor. I was just full of it. You know, he has to decide. Was he lying to everybody when he claimed he was Trudeau's advisor? Or was he telling the truth? And either way, he's got a major political problem that he is now totally inseparable from the Trudeau record. He supports the carbon tax. He supports the attack on our energy sector.

Or he's going to say, I wasn't really his advisor. I was just full of it. You know, he has to decide. Was he lying to everybody when he claimed he was Trudeau's advisor? Or was he telling the truth? And either way, he's got a major political problem that he is now totally inseparable from the Trudeau record. He supports the carbon tax. He supports the attack on our energy sector.

He told me in a parliamentary committee that he opposed Canadian pipelines, even though his company has invested in pipelines in the Middle East and in Brazil. He is part of the Davos agenda. He's just every bit as radical as Trudeau. The only difference is he's got a nice business banker's haircut and suit, and he wears navy blue socks rather than polka dot socks.

He told me in a parliamentary committee that he opposed Canadian pipelines, even though his company has invested in pipelines in the Middle East and in Brazil. He is part of the Davos agenda. He's just every bit as radical as Trudeau. The only difference is he's got a nice business banker's haircut and suit, and he wears navy blue socks rather than polka dot socks.

He told me in a parliamentary committee that he opposed Canadian pipelines, even though his company has invested in pipelines in the Middle East and in Brazil. He is part of the Davos agenda. He's just every bit as radical as Trudeau. The only difference is he's got a nice business banker's haircut and suit, and he wears navy blue socks rather than polka dot socks.