Get more from Josh Udall in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more

Get more from Josh Udall in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more

Get more from Josh Udall in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more

Why are they doing this to us? It seems like a logical question, but lately it feels more like a rhetorical one. The answers I’ve seen range from frustration over the brute-force reshoring of manufacturing to emotional fears of annexation. While the reactions have been varied, the thing that has bothered me is that there also seems to be a deep discomfort to even ask this question. “What role does Canada play” is not only missing from the discussion but seems to be actively discouraged as treasonous. We see examples of this from both major political parties in Ottawa, with even Liberal House Leader Steven MacKinnon saying that the “blame Canada brigade should sit down”, a clear rebuke that introspection is unwelcome.

While this government preaches that we are blameless victims of an illegal, illegitimate, unjustified, unfair, and unacceptable series of unfortunate tariffs, I wanted to know what Canadians are thinking. So, in our most recent poll I asked, “Which of these reasons do you think is the most important in explaining U.S. behaviour toward Canada?” and provided opportunity to rank the top three motives. What’s interesting is that the results suggest Canadians only half-understand what is happening1.

Our data shows that Canadians understand there is an economic motive (58%), but they are far less likely to identify the specific economic concerns being raised by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. Instead, statehood dominates the conversation. “To pressure Canada toward becoming part of the United States” is simultaneously chosen as the most important reason for 30% of Canadians and the least important for 22%. To add to the mystery, those who see statehood as the main motive don’t really fit a demographic profile either. Public servants, private sector workers, city and rural residents, graduates and nongraduates all name it as the main motive at about the same rate. So why is that? I would argue the messages from our top leaders are partly to blame.

When you look at statements by both the Liberal Prime Minister and the Republican President, both are fuelling the divisive statehood talk in the same bombastic way. President Trump will use statements about Canada becoming the 51^st state and Prime Minister Carney tells Canadians that America wants to own us. Compare that with the reasons given by the man actually responsible for trade, Jamieson Greer: rebuilding U.S. manufacturing, stopping Canada from becoming a back door for dumped steel and Chinese goods, and opening protected markets such as dairy, alcohol and autos.

Aside from reshoring, these are among the least-cited motives in our poll, yet the negotiating team is telling us clearly that these items are the priority. Canadians simply aren’t hearing it over the noise of our leaders. What makes matters worse is not just that we’re not hearing the other side, but we’re focusing on reasons they’ve already dismissed. Take energy for example, Trump says that they don’t need Canadian energy, yet 47% of Canadians rank it in their top three reasons for tariffs. To see a breakdown of each of these reasons and how Trump, Greer, Carney and Canadians have responded, you can compare them in the chart below.

So where does that leave us, the Canadian public, reeling over job losses, higher prices, and the lack of a foreseeable deal? We need to demand our leaders listen to the wisdom of the people, and stop reacting to the emotions of a presidential social media post. We’ve already made strides by dropping the digital services tax that was a legislative headache, and there are more opportunities to find mutual wins. The answer isn’t to just give America what it wants. It’s to distinguish between what can be negotiated, what should be negotiated, and what is clearly not up for debate. With that lens in mind, I see four clear paths forward:

1. Close the back door

Align Canada’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods with the U.S., framed as protecting Canadian industry. 41% of Canadians already see limits on Chinese imports as Canada protecting itself, against only 23% who would see it as following U.S. orders. 52% see a transshipment problem and Carney has already acknowledged that U.S. tariffs are pushing foreign steel into Canada.

2. Put Greer’s named barriers on the table, starting where public resistance is lowest

Only 12% of Canadians say dairy protection should be defended most firmly, making it one of the areas where Canada may have the most room to negotiate. The Montreal Economic Institute estimates supply management costs Canadians $244 per person per year. Repealing Bill C-202 could therefore be framed not as surrendering to Washington, but as making groceries more affordable while addressing one of the barriers on Greer’s list.

3. Build side by side on reshoring manufacturing

48% see U.S. reshoring as an opportunity or a shared goal, so frame it as a partnership, not a concession.

4. Draw the sovereignty line explicitly

Statehood and vetoes over Canada’s trade deals are not up for negotiation. Canadians who feel that this is all about statehood are least willing to negotiate (25%) and the most willing to walk away (41%). We need to remove the frame that a deal is surrender.

None of these paths asks Canada to surrender, and we need to stop labeling those who try to understand Canada’s role in the American argument as traitors. The landscape is loud, but adding to the noise isn’t the way forward. Neither is waiting to see what happens next. We need our leaders to start proposing solutions and get back to the negotiating table with ideas that create mutual wins. Because at the end of the day, the President is going to keep posting, the Prime Minister is going to keep answering, and 73% of us want some form of negotiation. It’s time to get a deal for Canada. That’s what they were elected to do, after all.

It can feel overwhelming and daunting to imagine what role we as individuals play in an economic conflict between two nations. We don't set the tariffs, negotiate the trade agreements, or decide how Washington or Ottawa responds. But this is where I draw attention to the very real power that we as a collective have. We have influence over something arguably just as important: how we understand what is happening. Ottawa depends on public support to exercise power, and the stories we believe about a threat help determine how much power we are willing to give them in response. That makes the narrative surrounding this trade dispute more than just commentary, it becomes part of the conflict itself.

As a researcher and trained evaluator one of the mantras I live by is: “no stories without numbers, no numbers without stories”. Right now I think Canadians are hearing a story that needs to be tested against the numbers. The story we are hearing is of a country at war, threatened by a neighbour hell-bent on destroying some of our most vital sectors. This is where the data diverges from what we are hearing, and instead I want to tell you the more complicated story from our latest poll of 1000 Canadians.1

In our poll we asked, how personally affected people were by the dispute, and if they perceived the United States as a threat. We then compared those responses with employment status and stated occupation. The result was striking.

Canadians who rated themselves least affected by the trade dispute were also the most likely to see the United States as an economic threat.

Who are these individuals? Retirees and Public Sector workers. Now comes the really interesting part:

Manufacturers were the least likely to rate the United States as an economic threat.

That finding raises an uncomfortable question: Why are the people who are the most exposed to the economic consequences of the dispute less likely to describe the United States as a threat than those who are not directly affected?

My theory is that there is a difference between experiencing a trade dispute and experiencing the narrative surrounding it. This is not the first time that Canada and the United States have argued over trade and tariffs. Those actively involved in the business of trade may be more likely to see what’s happening through the lens of two countries with competing economic interests, each trying to secure the best possible deal. Those farther removed might instead be experiencing this dispute only through political commentary and emotionally charged headlines from legacy media outlets.

And we are seeing examples of this constantly. Last week, Canadian media coverage of a New York Times interview with Mark Carney was dominated by the headline: “Canada prepares for possibility of military invasion by US.” What this does is raise the fear and anxiety of an entire nation to think that we might be in physical danger and inevitably changes the tone and temperature of the conversation. Which I would add is incredibly unhelpful when trying to reach a deal on a complicated economic negotiation.

So how should we approach this, if those who are most impacted are saying that this is not a threat, and those who are least affected feel that it is? Our polling offers an answer.

When we asked what approach Canada should take in the next stage of negotiations, direct engagement and negotiation or to retaliate and confront the administration, 34% of respondents picked the diplomatic option and only 13% thought we should retaliate. Among the remaining respondents 39% still supported an approach that included negotiation alongside confrontation. Taken together that means 73% of respondents believe a diplomatic approach needs to be included in how we respond.

The problem arises when we asked regardless of perspective, what approach people believed Ottawa is currently taking, the results were all over the map, with no consensus on what the federal government is actually doing. That’s no small disconnect. We might disagree on how confrontational we should be, but the evidence is clear that diplomacy is the preferred approach, which the rhetoric misses entirely.

This is not new wisdom unlocked by the power of public polling, this is something we’ve always known as Canadians. I was taught “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar”, and right now it feels like we’ve collectively drank the vinegar. The bitterness towards our neighbours is something like I’ve never seen before, and I worry that we are allowing the rhetoric to become more damaging than the dispute itself.

Instead of only asking “why are we being attacked”, we need to also ask why it is that those who are most affected are not seeing it this way? Who benefits by keeping an entire country in a state of collective anxiety? What liberties are being sacrificed at the altar of safety? And how do we truly give ourselves more than what can be taken away, not only economically, but ideologically at our core. That is a conversation we aren’t having while our country is stuck in fight-or-flight.

Let’s collectively take a breath, we are not at war, we’ve been down this road before, and we’re not confused about how to act. Regardless of political leaning, we need to demand that our leaders and the apparatuses that support them, be transparent about what they are actually accomplishing. We should expect negotiation where negotiation can work. We should defend Canadian interests without pretending every disagreement is a fight for sovereignty. We must end the language of war long enough to have a conversation that returns to the spirit of collaboration we’ve always had.

Follow him on other platforms here:
Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@bravenewnormal
X: https://x.com/jasonjamesbnn

Read more

So one thing that’s really stuck with me since former CBC producer Rodney Palmer's revealing testimony at the Allison Inquiry, was his caution that emotionally charged words are being used to shape how people think and act. He proceeded to list off a couple words that the mainstream media used over and over again, as a way to persuade the population of a certain point, and it made me wonder: what words are we hearing today that are shaping our beliefs? And right on cue, the mainstream media served up the word “sovereignty” and I knew I had found my dog-whistle.

Since January 1, “sovereignty” has appeared in more than 2,700 stories across the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and CBC News according to the analytics platform Media Cloud. That equates to roughly 10 stories a day. Then, when you include “threat” and “sovereignty” together, you’re looking at approximately 2.5 stories daily. Think about that for a moment: every day you are being bombarded with at least two and half stories pushing you to feel that your sovereignty is under threat.

But with all this coverage, do we really know what this word means? Would we know if it were gone?

To start to answer these questions, we asked a representative sample of 1000 Canadians what sovereignty means to them, and 26% of people told us the word either has no specific meaning to them, or that they weren’t sure. You might assume these are just people who aren’t paying attention, and you’d be wrong. Canadians with no definition of sovereignty are just as likely to say our economy is under threat, and just as likely to believe the damage is permanent. You might think, “I know that's an alarming percentage, but at least the remaining 74% broadly agree on what sovereignty means”, and you’d be wrong again.

To some Canadians, sovereignty is being defined in terms of our economic dependence on the United States, to others it’s the fear of annexation. For some it’s the fear of our laws bending under American pressure, and for others it’s our culture being absorbed. There’s no clear consensus. And it’s not just different definitions, this is a completely different read on the situation and what should be done about it. So when a Canadian leader steps up to the podium and tells you about “sovereignty” in a “dangerous and divided world” the country hears four different speeches, and a quarter of it hears nothing at all. We aren’t one country rallying behind one word, we’re four countries and a silence, all shouting the same syllables.

What’s even more interesting is this additional finding from our research: party affiliation, region, and language make no meaningful difference to how people define sovereignty. This isn’t a left vs right problem, this is a cross cutting Canadian problem. It’s the result of an emotion we’re being asked to feel thousands of times over, at a rate of 2.5 stories a day, without any collective agreement about what the word actually means.

That brings us back to a key question about what we are hearing every day: is our sovereignty under threat and what does that mean?

When we look back at how the folks who couldn’t point to a description of sovereignty answer questions about “threats” in the context of the trade dispute with Washington, there is another unique finding. This group is the most likely in our survey to reject any deal with the United States (42% against 30% by other respondents), and the least likely to want to push back (5% against 16%). It is a strange paradox: concede nothing, but fight for nothing. What it shows us, is what it looks like when a country knows it’s angry but doesn’t know what it’s protecting.

The theme right now in the mainstream media is that we need to protect ourselves from the war waged on our economy by our neighbours to the south. What’s curious is that for all the talk of defending ourselves against Washington, some of the most expensive barriers impeding our economy and free trade were made right here at home. Deloitte estimates that removing Canada’s interprovincial trade barriers could add $881 billion to the economy by 2040 and create 133,000 jobs. And if sovereignty truly means having control over our collective economic future, why are we still putting barriers between ourselves? Wouldn’t it stand to reason that before we blame someone else for all our economic woes, we should probably look inward and make sure we are actually doing all that we can for ourselves?

When we get down to brass tacks, sovereignty is ultimately about the authority of a people to determine their own future. But before we decide what that future looks like, we need to have a sense of who “we” are. This is where the deeper problem lies. The word “sovereignty” is being used as though it represents a shared understanding of what we are trying to protect, when our research shows it doesn’t. It instead becomes an emotional trigger, where the fear it invokes can grant the political capital to make decisions unencumbered by consultation. It paints debate as devision, and opposition as treason, like a silver bullet for national unity under a shared anxiety.

I believe that the true remedy to this confusion is to name the distraction and get to the real work of defining who we are. If we as a people are to come together, we must believe that we are working towards a future with shared values and common goals. This is where the real work begins, and I would argue that the longer we are unable to articulate the uniqueness of who we are, the closer we get to being divided and conquered by any external force.

So before we get angry or fearful about sovereignty, let’s ask the question we’ve skipped entirely: what does it mean to be Canadian? It’s the most important question this country has avoided in a generation. Answer that, and sovereignty stops being a word we use to score political points. It becomes the measure of who we are, and whether we’re still writing our own story.

No one has taken the pen from us, so let’s write a definition worth defending.

Methodology: Axiom Analytics’ Canada–U.S. Strategic Understanding Survey, n=1,000 Canadian adults, fielded in English and French through Logit’s online panel in September 2026. Results are weighted by region, age, gender and education to Statistics Canada targets. Because this is a non-probability online panel, a margin of error does not apply. For comparison, a probability sample of this size would carry a margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Differences described as gaps are statistically significant. Groups described as the same or “just as likely” show no significant difference.

They also recognize that the US isn’t acting out of impulse. Canadians recognize that the moves of the US are connected to a larger strategic plan, but views diverge on what that larger strategic plan is.

They realize China is not a replacement for the US however it is hard for them to look past the issues that our media brings up consistently about the US.

But the reality is given the feelings of the electorate, it has been made clear that they want negotiation to happen now, they want a deal now, and they want the fighting to end. They do not have the stomach for a prolonged trade war as it is hurting their pocket books here at home.

One thing to note is that there is about a third of the electorate who desire no deal rather than any negotiation happening around our core industries. However the majority of people who desire that are currently not in the workforce.

Keep in mind the vote intention of those polled skews Liberal which makes these findings even more eye opening. The vote intention as a percentage of those polled is as follows:

Liberal 41%

Conservative 24%

NDP 8%

Bloc Quebecois 7%

Green 3%

PPC 1%

Other 1%

Undecided 10%

Prefer not to Say 5%

You can find the full raw data report here

Canada-US Relationship Summary Report

3.87MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Canada Us Report

10MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

This is where my own personal story comes into play. In my time on this earth I’ve held a number of roles in and around research, data analysis, and laboratory medicine. At the time when the mandates were first coming into effect, I had just transitioned away from Laboratory Medicine and into a masters degree. I remember hearing the handling requirements for an intervention that was MRNA based, and from my experience preparing molecular research samples, that had to be kept at a minus 80 degree temperature at all times, these new interventions that could be kept at minus 20 or room temperature in some claims, didn’t make sense.

How could this work on this level yet be stable at this temperature for longer periods of time? I began questioning the messaging that said, don’t ask questions just do, elsewise be labeled the arbiter of death for your friends, family, and community. I remember speaking to my masters supervisor about my concerns around my soon to be pregnant wife, and was told, everyone is getting it, don’t be stupid.

To be clear, I support established medical protocols built over generations that have saved so many lives from things like measles, mumps, and polio. I don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but what is concerning is when real safety signals are suppressed and those we’ve paid and entrusted to inform us are actively working against us. By hiding evidence of negative experiences in an effort to curb hesitancy, you’ve called into question every positive advancement made, and instead created more resistance than ever before.

I fervently believe that to be a journalist is a sacred role, you are responsible for the truth telling that can shape an entire time, people, and place in history. What was revealed in this inquiry was that trust has been abused, deliberately broken, and sold for personal gain. And as we know, once trust is broken, it is very hard to get back. So where does that leave this organization? Does it acknowledge its wrongs and establish a level of transparency second to none? No, it doubles down on the reporting of half-truths, reframing narratives, and trying to distance themselves from their mistakes, thus further eroding what little goodwill we had left. Here is the example I present, we have the smallest coverage by the state broadcaster describing the Allison Inquiry, omitting any testimony surrounding its reporting failures, and instead leaves the reader to believe that the incidence of those affected is so minuscule, to not even be bothered with.

How do they do this? They report real factual numbers around the amount of dosages administered, 105 million, then they take the number of serious adverse event reports of 11,702 as reported by health Canada and make that a percentage of the total. You end up with 0.01% which signals to the reader that this is not something to be serious about. But this calculation is meaningless, as it provides a factual calculation on a metric that tells us nothing about safety. We can reasonably assume that 11,702 serious adverse events are individual people. We can make that assumption because there is no way a person who would have suffered a serious event such as hospitalization, life-threatening illness, disability, or death, would be offered another opportunity to react in the same way, nor would that person of sound mind willingly decide to take that risk twice.

So now read that number as 11,702 people, or all of Kenora Ontario, or all of Gander Newfoundland, or Yarmouth Nova Scotia. Trying to paint it as insignificant is not only disingenuous, it’s purposeful misinformation, or as normal people call it, lying. And any organization that lies by omission or obfuscation is not deserving of our trust, time, or tax dollars. Its now up to us to reshape the way our stories are shared, and to ensure that truth to power is not lost in the messaging of those who are so evidently morally bankrupt and corrupt.

In this live testimony from the Allison Inquiry in Ottawa, a veteran journalist breaks down the precise mechanics of how legacy media shifted from public service to state-aligned propaganda. Drawing from decades of broadcasting experience, the witness outlines how critical investigative reporting was systematically suppressed while government-funded initiatives dictated on-air narratives.

Key Highlights from the Testimony:

• The Shift from Public to State Broadcaster: Public broadcasting relies on bottom-up newsgathering from local reporters. State broadcasting relies on top-down propaganda using the same anchors to manipulate public opinion.

• Dismissing the Lab Leak: How national broadcasts mocked family members asking questions about the Wuhan lab before independent reports and U.S. agencies confirmed the lab leak as a serious hypothesis.

• CBC Kids & Health Canada Omissions: Broadcasts told children there were “no safety concerns” just days after Health Canada issued warnings regarding anaphylaxis.

• The Suppression of Veteran Reporters: Marianne Klowak, a 35-year CBC veteran, had her investigative story on vaccine injuries suppressed by executives, leading to her resignation.

• Unvarnished Conflicts of Interest: Outlets routinely brought on experts from government-funded groups like Science Up First ($1.75M in federal funding) without disclosing their funding source to viewers.

• The Language of Censorship: How terms like “anti-vaxxer,” “conspiracy theorist,” and “misinformation” are weaponized to enforce self-censorship and silence legitimate questions.

• The Ignored Protest: Why 150 vaccine-injured Canadians plastering their stories on the front doors of CBC headquarters were completely ignored by legacy news outlets.

Watch the full testimony above to see how journalism collapsed—and why building decentralized, independent media is more vital now than ever.

Get more from Josh Udall in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more

Get more from Josh Udall in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more

The Secret Military Talks: Bypassed by Beijing

While the PMO tried to hide behind generic press releases regarding an Indo-Pacific defense conference in Victoria, China’s Ministry of National Defense dropped a massive bombshell. On September 4th, Ottawa quietly hosted the 5th China-Canada Defense Coordination Dialogue—the first formal military-to-military talks between the two nations in eight years.

Ottawa issued zero public statements about the meeting. It was only after independent citizen journalists and alternative media blew the story open online that The Globe and Mail was finally forced to cover the story. DND spokesperson Nick Dresser-Brown claimed Ottawa doesn’t publicize “working-level meetings,” but Canadians know the truth: Mark Carney is hiding his strategic security courtship with Beijing from both the public and our Southern ally.

View the full stream here

Why isn’t Prime Minister Mark Carney acting to strengthen the Loonie? Because his elite globalist network is actively profiting from our decline, with market speculators holding a staggering $12.5 billion in net short positions betting directly against the Canadian dollar.

Enter Scott Bessent

While Ottawa assumes tariff negotiations are the end of the line, Washington possesses financial enforcement tools it has yet to unleash on Canada. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already demonstrated how Washington can sever hostile actors from the global U.S. dollar system and hunt down hidden offshore assets.

If Scott Bessent is officially directed toward the Canadian file, this could spell choppier waters for Carney’s Liberal Party.

The Beijing Axis and Progressive Hypocrisy

Appearing on national broadcasts, Conservative Shadow Minister Shuv Majumdar laid bare the utter failure of Carney’s “middle power” thesis. While the European Union and the United Kingdom explicitly aligned their trade and defence frameworks with Washington, Carney tilted decisively toward Beijing. From appointing McKinsey insider Dominic Barton to head Canada’s key investment mechanism to chasing undisclosed security arrangements with the CCP, Ottawa continues to isolate Canada from its natural Western allies.

• European Union: Chose U.S. trade alignment.

• United Kingdom: Chose U.S. security integration.

• Carney’s Canada: Tilted toward Beijing.

When Trump jabbed Canadian pride by renaming Lake Ontario to “Lake America,” progressive elites launched into full-blown outrage. Yet these exact same progressive commentators stayed completely silent while local activists erased Canadian history, tore down statues, and renamed historic streets like Dundas Square.

The Bottom Line

The Laurentian elite want you hyper-focused on Trump’s rhetoric so you ignore Mark Carney’s deliberate economic devaluation and cozy relationship with Beijing. Real Canadian sovereignty means thinking for ourselves, standing for our heritage, and securing our Western perimeter.

You can watch the full livestream from September 7th right here

Get more from Josh Udall in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more

Read more

Get more from Josh Udall in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more

The Trojan Horse: Kenney, Ford, and the Anti-Trump Shield

The establishment play is becoming undeniably transparent. Watch former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, who claims he has zero interest in returning to federal politics, yet spends his time firing attacks at Federal Conservative MPs and smearing independent commentators as an “alt-right influencer mob.”

Kenney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford—who recently claimed Canada is being treated like “communist China”—are using anti-American grandstanding to give Mark Carney a free pass. Notice what is missing from their talking points? They refuse to say the five-letter word: China. They won’t mention the CCP police stations, the real-estate money laundering, or how Carney’s friends at Brookfield Infrastructure are actively benefiting from Canadian capital fleeing across the border. They treat party members as voting cattle, using woke media tricks to police alternative media.

The Alleged Coordinated Media Blitz: Kenney, Faulkner, and Fernando

I don’t believe this to be organic friction; I believe this to be a coordinated campaign to reshape party leadership. Look at the strategic alignment unfolding across independent and legacy commentary:

• The Face: Jason Kenney positions himself as the sensible, patriotic alternative to Poilievre’s populist coalition.

• The Platform: Harrison Faulkner of Juno News brings Kenney on for repeated debates, echoing Kenney’s exact phrasing about “influencers.”

• The Scribe: Writer Spencer Fernando regularly churns out pieces praising Kenney while demanding Poilievre join the anti-Trump chorus.

When asked directly if this synchronized messaging represents a coordinated effort to clear the runway for a leadership coup, the response from the establishment circle is dismissive sarcasm. But the pattern speaks for itself. They want a return to globalist compliance, where Ottawa insiders control the narrative while the working class carries the tax burden.

The Real Leverage: Securing our Border

True Canadian sovereignty isn’t built on theatrical insults or running defence for Mark Carney. Real leverage requires good-faith security leadership:

• Eradicate Foreign Interference: Flood the RCMP with resources to shut down CCP illegal police stations, crack down on systemic real estate money laundering, and secure our ports.

• Build Hard Power: Reinvest in northern defense, protect the Arctic perimeter, and eliminate anti-development regulations holding our resource sector hostage.

• Lead with Western Alignment: Approach Washington from a position of security strength, guaranteeing an airtight North American trade zone that completely excludes adversarial state dumping.

The Bottom Line

The establishment thinks you are stupid enough to fall for their recycled anti-American diversion. They want you focused on political theatrics so you ignore Carney’s total economic negligence. Don’t let them.

Unlock the Full Picture 🔓 and check for yourself.

📍 SOURCES & REFERENCES

• Global News: Jason Kenney speaks out on Alberta oil tariffs and US trade

• Jason Kenney (X): Reaction to Jamil Jivani video on federal conservative strategy

• Bloomberg: Brookfield weighing US manufacturing investments amid tariff shifts

• Jason Kenney (X): Directing comments toward Doug Ford on US-Canada trade tensions

• CBS News: Doug Ford’s stance on US-Canada trade and China tariffs

• Jason Kenney (X): Comments addressing Conservative commentators and party line messaging

📍 MEDIA INFLUENCERS & MEDIA ORBITS

• Harrison Faulkner (X): Posts regarding Conservative commentary and media shifts

• Harrison Faulkner (X): Exchange on Canada-China policy focus

• Jason Kenney (X): Defending Harrison Faulkner during online backlash

• Harrison Faulkner (X): Response to Mario’s question regarding commentary coordination

📍 SPENCER FERNANDO ARTICLES & COVERAGE

• Spencer Fernando (X): Commentary on conservative media discourse

• The Hub: It’s time for Poilievre to speak out against Trump

• Spencer Fernando: Analysis of Trump, US-China trade, and Canadian tariffs

• Spencer Fernando: Jason Kenney delivers strong defence of Alberta’s place in Canada

Get more from Josh Udall in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Read more