Weekly Brief #75
Carney or Poilievre, who's better for Canada? ... Plus, BoC holds key interest rate, Figma files for American IPO, Google ruled an ad tech monopoly, Meta’s acquisition antitrust trial, and more.
A huge welcome to the 24 investors who joined The J. Nicholas since last week! Haven’t subscribed yet? Join 974 intelligent investors by subscribing here.
Good morning investor 👋,
Welcome back to the 75th Weekly Brief.
This week’s performance:
S&P 500: +0.52% | Nasdaq: -0.44% | Dow Jones: -0.89% | TSX: +4.96% | Gold: +2.73% | Bitcoin: +1.22% | The Quality Fund: +0.89%.
The Canadian federal leader debates aired live this week. I watched both debates (French1 and English), took some notes, and for the main story today, I’ve written a complete no-bullcrap overview of the leading candidates based on what they told about their policies throughout. Nothing biased or subjective. (As always, I will provide the objective facts for the information, but with a dedicated personal opinion section afterwards for those interested in what I think.)
This week’s featured story is quite detailed; therefore, I had to remove the politics section for today in favour of the longer story. BUT, the section I removed was an overview on the newest China–U.S. tariff news over the past week, so here is that summarized before we move on to the full issue:
China raises retaliatory tariff to 125% and orders its airlines to suspend Boeing deliveries. Also suspends certain key minerals to the U.S2.
The U.S. raises its tariff to (China faces up to) 245%3.
Let’s get into it. (23 min read)
In this issue:
🗳️ Canadian leader debate, summarized
🤝 Figma files for American IPO
📺 Google ruled an ad tech monopoly
FEATURED STORY
🗳️ Canadian leader debate(s), summarized
Each of the heads of the leading parties in Canada (Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Bloc) went head to head in a debate(s) this week, and you already read the title, so I’m not going to waste your time. Most of The J. Nicholas readers are Canadian (well over 51%), so this should be a highly applicable story given recent political events.
Now, to start, the NDP and Bloc, summarized, are candidates who propose a large increase in government-funded social programs that our government can’t afford, and caring only about Quebec’s needs, respectively. (This is the definitely not biased, objective summary of both of these parties (it’s not, this is a joke) Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet even said during the debate that his goal is not to be prime minister or leader of Canada, but to represent the needs of Quebec in Parliament to balance the power. So that’s not a bias, this is known.
Since both the NDP and Bloc will be small parties according to their projected seats, I’m not going to even bother mentioning their stances or positions in this debate summary. As I write this, and assumingly for the rest of the Canadian election campaign, you really only have two choices if you don’t want a wasted vote: Liberal and Conservative. The leaders of these parties being Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre, respectively. And these are the two individuals who I’ll be talking about today when going over the summary.
Now to preface, I am writing this without bias. If you detect any bias shown outside of the dedicated “My Thoughts” section below, it should be considered unintentional because my intention is to be non-partisan with the broad summary. I will mention each candidate’s weakness and strength, and what does and doesn’t make sense. I will treat things fairly and equally. And before you start reading below, I’d like to share the following:
This is my political compass result from around a month ago (so anyone questionable cannot say I purposely answered a certain way to make it seem a certain way), and it shows my political ideology. As seen on the chart, I am very close to what would be considered centrist. Slightly liberal-leaning on the social side, and slightly liberal on the economic side (though I’d consider myself more conservative on most economic issues). By definition, I’m a progressive, socialistic-leaning economic conservative—which tends to lean centre.
But something to takeaway from this before you read today’s write-up: The data says I’m technically more Liberal then Conservative.
Furthermore, I do not identify with a certain party (even though I have a membership with one4), and I have no problem voting interchangeably for both Liberal and Conservative candidates depending on their policy platform. I will never vote socialist (NDP) in my lifetime, and since Bloc only runs in Quebec, me not voting for them answers itself. I have always thought it’s foolish to be stagnant in your political views. Much like your investment strategy. Because things change. You grow. You learn. And party policy frequently changes based on leadership in a given lifetime.
Nonetheless, with my political views aside, this leaves us with the platforms in question. Here are a few things to note: I will not be focusing on the specific issues of controversy of each candidate such as the Brookfield conflict mess with Carney, or the foreign interference mess or the Trump associations with Poilievre. That’s trite. Those issues are divisive, and heavily push towards subjectivity and bias (which is unneeded here). I will also not be focusing on social issues for the same reasons.
General policy matters much more. Thus, I want to focus purely on topics that can’t be held with a bias: facts. Then, at the end in a dedicated section, I will give you my honest opinion of everything and who is both objectively and subjectively (according to me), the best candidate based on policy alone. Exactly like I did with the American election during that campaign last year (I wrote that Kamala Harris had the better general policy (the data never lies).
Alright, now that the terms are clear, let’s get into it. (Note: not all the quotes below are 1-1 copied.)
Affordability & cost of living
Starting with housing costs: For Poilievre, he plans to remove the federal sales tax, incentivize municipalities to remove their sales tax, sell off federal land for more house building, and train up to 300,000 tradespeople to help build the homes (not sure where this number came from or how he’ll train these hundreds of thousands of people, but this is what he said).
For Carney, he plans to change the model of building—increase the housing financing for developers (he mentioned a number of $25 billion and $10 billion for deeply affordable homes for these developers (which was a Trudeau policy), slash the federal GST tax on new homes, cut development charges in half, lower the cost of building homes by 20%, and lower the emissions and run costs of those homes by another 20%—much of which Pierre did not mention in his plan.
Poilievre’s plan is much more straighforward with the steps, while Carney’s is more detailed. That being said, Carney’s plan here involves large amounts of federal loans and mostly promises instead of steps. Poilievre also brought up further bureaucracy in the debate as a side effect of this increase in federal spending, and that could definitely be another concern.
Carney justified this spending by saying Poilievre has “a misunderstanding of the government’s balance sheet to catalyze enormous private investment.” This is theoretically correct if done right (and if it’s temporary—which it most likely is in this situation), but the Canadian government cannot keep taking on debt and printing dollars indefinitely without side effects.
For affordability, Poilievre plans to tackle these issues by lowering taxes—cutting income taxes by 15% or $2,000 per taxpayer for the “average worker and senior citizen” (those making under a certain income level). He also mentioned how out of all expenses for the average Canadian, taxes are the highest5, and therefore his plan to ease costs for Canadians would be to cut that expense.
Carney plans to tackle affordability differently. He brought up the Liberal dental and childcare programs, and his want is to keep at it with more spending on these programs to help ease affordability. Nothing on tax cuts. But again, programs like these cost money, and Canada is currently in a federal deficit (Carney talks about fiscal policy below).
Crime, immigration, foreign policy
For crime: Carney plans to reintroduce the gun buyback program in a way he believes will work, saying it’s one of the best ways to deal with the gun crisis in Canada. He says the program failed on an individual level before, but worked well on the commercial level, and that that can be turned around with good oversight. Carney also mentioned that to tackle home invasions and car hijacks (apparent in major cities), he would impose stricter criminal penalties for those who are part of gangs or use a firearm. This would be paired with a reverse onus on bail (which is already in effect), and 1,000 more RCMP officers and 1,000 border agents, respectively. (As well as the extra drones, helicopters, and more included in the broader Liberal fentanyl plan announced before Trudeau left office that Carney inherited.) Carney also said he’d make it a criminal offence to threaten or impede anyone from safely operating in their place of worship, community centre, or school.
Poilievre’s plan includes a new “three strikes, you’re out” law—three convictions for serious crimes and you go to jail for a minimum of 10 years or for life without parole or bail. He also mentioned securing the border with 2,000 border agents as a combat measure against the fentanyl crisis and gun smuggling problems Canada faces (similar to what’s already in place by the Liberals). One of his controversial stances on the stage was his willingness to use the notwithstanding clause (a power given to the prime minister to override the Charter in special circumstances) for mass murderers and criminals. “They should only come out in a box.” “You will not be allowed out of jail until you prove that you are drug-free, behave perfectly, and have learned an employable skill after a 10-year sentence.”
Carney disagrees that this should be invoked, and when Jagmeet Singh (NDP leader) started saying all candidates believe in “the want to have mass murderers locked up,” but that it should be up to our judicial system and its judges to make that decision morally, Carney nodded along. So I’ll just assume that would be Carney’s stance since he agrees. Carney’s concern when asked point blank about the use of this clause was that it could lead to a “slippery slope” of illegal Charter infringements down the line if Poilievre starts using it. (Though I find this to be backwards thinking, as the specific use case of the clause proposed by Pierre for mass murderers is right in line with protecting Canadians, which indirectly is supporting their rights as outlined in the Charter.)
On crime, both are very detailed with their proposals. Carney does have an advantage because he inherited most of the previously already-in-place crime policies—like at the border, for example. But Poilievre is undoubtedly the tougher candidate here with his proposals just by definition alone because of his pledge to use the notwithstanding clause to enforce the policies.
For immigration, Poilievre says he will encourage the restructuring of the immigration system to weed out fraud and make sure things run smoothly—so things don’t get out of control like they did with the past immigration policies by the previous Liberal government (which very much contributed to the housing crisis and the crisis of affordability that we’re all in now). Carney seems to take the same plan as Trudeau did when he announced his revised immigration policy way back when (you can watch the full policy here), and his plan is not only currently in place because of that, but it’s nearly identical to Trudeau.
Both candidates support Ukraine and Israel’s right to defend themselves in the Russian war and Gaza conflict, but also support the Palestinians’ right to land and peace—same for Israel. Both candidates support an immediate ceasefire to end conflict ASAP, though Poilievre did not clearly state any intent to continue with more aid to Ukraine—he did say “that’s not true” in the mic when Carney said “Mr. Poilevre does not want to send more aid to Ukraine” but he didn’t have a chance to respond—while Carney did.
Poilievre believes that internal crime in Canada is our biggest national security threat, while Carney believes China is. Both candidates support a bigger military budget to meet spending requirements by NATO (both pledge by 2030), though Poilievre was more detailed in his plan for the military in the debate. But in all fairness, both parties have announced miltary revamp plans. It’s just that only Poilievre spoke about his on stage.
More on Poilievre’s military plan here, Carney’s here (though I will mention, Pierre is much more vocal on his plan for the military especially in the arctic, and was the first to bring these issues to light).
Energy, climate & economy
Energy and climate went hand in hand during the debate, so I’ll be consolidating these topics just to smooth things out. For Poilievre, his proposed policies on energy and “cutting red tape” for our “vast natural resources” is top of mind. Opening new pipeline projects, speed-running approvals efficiently, opening new nuclear plants and LNG liquefaction plants, and so forth. He plans to repeal what he calls the “anti-development” energy law C-696, as well as the industrial carbon tax and the “Liberal energy cap” currently in place.
For the energy law just mentioned, Poilievre claims it has blocked 15 LNG export plants over the last ten years (while I’m not sure if this number is true, it is true that the law blocks plants (view footnote #6), making more jobs that could be in Canada go abroad. His plan for the climate is around the same issues, where he says that not developing the energy in Canada and letting that production go abroad is worse for the environment. Poilievre uses an example of India in the debate, where if Canada were to sell our gas to India to displace half of their demand for electricity, it would reduce emissions by 2.5 billion tonnes—three times the total emissions of Canada. His proposal is one that “makes emissions go down, and jobs go up,” using his words. Poilievre also proposed tax credits to low-emitting Canadian energy and industrial companies, which would be another way to “help the environment, while keeping and growing jobs in Canada.”
Carney also believes that ramping up energy production is crucial to the national interests of Canada (for economic growth, job growth, and energy security), including in current times with Donald Trump’s economic threats to Canada and so forth. If we’re competitive in the market, says Carney, it will necessarily lead to lower carbon emissions.
Carney plans to work with Indigenous peoples to get these plants and pipelines approved, and mentioned his proposal to double the Indigenous loan guarantee program to $10 billion, which would be a way for Indigenous communities to invest equity into the projects. “It is not just an economic opportunity for Canada, it is a strategic opportunity,” for developing more resource and energy production. “[And] it’s not just to develop it, but how we develop it, and who our partners are with for it. The opportunity is in Europe and Asia as our partners.” Carney plans to impose fast-tracking measures and launch a “first and last mile” fund to ensure the projects are near road and rail to go quickly to market. Capital fast-tracking, timing and approvals are all part of his platform for energy.
He also briefly mentioned oil and gas subsidies as a way for the government to “own assets of the Canadian people,” (which I thought was very interesting; sounds like Norway), and plans to make Canada into a clean energy superpower.
Carney does, however, have the industrial carbon tax in place for Canada’s big polluters (all industries, not just fossil fuels)—a tax to encourage better climate choices, as he says, which will turn into a rebate for Canadians much like how the consumer carbon rebate was supposed to work on the individual level. This is part of Carney’s broader climate plan. Poilievre is against this tax, as he says it discourages growth and sends jobs overseas, and he promises to get rid of it if elected. For Poilievre’s climate and environmental policies, he plans to ban the dumping of raw sewage into Canadian waters and hold “large corporations to high environmental standards to protect our water and air” (though he didn’t specify much about these standards).
For the economy, both candidates wish to send retaliation to America for the tariffs. Poilievre did not mention if he would do dollar-for-dollar retaliation or not (or maybe I missed it, I’m not sure), but he mentioned he would retaliate and with strength, while Carney said (and already has in place) retaliation that minimizes impact on Canada and maximizes impact on America. Carney is against dollar-for-dollar retaliation. Both candidates support diversification away from the American market (our economy is heavily tied to America) by selling to the world and partnering elsewhere. But Pierre, which I thought was interesting, wants to encourage more free trade with America while simultaneously looking elsewhere. Which is a great strategy. Carney did not specify anything similar.
On the fiscal side, Carney’s plan to balance the budget is to slow spending growth from 9% to 2%, with the goal of a balanced budget in three years. Carney also mentioned putting aside a small portion of capital by the federal government to drive private investment up to $500 billion in five years. Poilievre promises a balanced budget as soon as possible, but wasn’t as detailed in his plans to get there, aside from his continued remarks on growing Canada’s energy exports (which will grow our economy, hence helping the budget with time).
On the energy front, Poilievre is the objectively better choice because of his want to repeal C-69 and other cap laws which do hinder growth of production. On the climate front, Carney is the objectively better choice, even though both Poilievre and Carney acknowledge the environment in their policies. And for the economy, both in terms of economic growth and fiscal sustainability, both candidates are (I’d say) equally as good. Both are clear with their plans there.
My thoughts
Carney is the most qualified person for the job here. In a purely academic and professional setting, he’s an outstanding individual. Harvard degree, Oxford PhD, former Bank of Canada and Bank of England Governor, and well over a decade at Goldman Sachs—he has the knowledge and ability to manage our economy and have well-thought-out discussions with our allies on that front. He’s very capable. Possibly one of the most capable candidates in recent history for our country.
Though, being new to the political space means his clarity isn’t as sharp, and potentially even his other policies—beyond economics (including housing), climate, and foreign affairs—are much less talked about. He just doesn’t have a very clear plan in those other areas. He says a lot of what he wants to do, but he’s talking about the car you can buy on the lot without detailing the manufacturing process and the vast supply chain it takes to build the car (analogy).
However, Pierre is just as capable. Being a career politician (yes, this is true) who understands how things work is an advantage people underestimate. Thanks to his political experience, he’s much more thorough when speaking about his policies—every one—and very clear in making his points. It’s also very apparent he knows what he’s talking about when he speaks, even though that may or may not be a consequence of preparedness.
I will say, this is where Pierre Poilievre wins. He can explain his plans for every policy clearly and straightforwardly. And even if you use the “he’s a career politician and uneducated beyond politics” card against him, it’s hard to believe that someone who can easily explain what they plan to do—and how they plan to do it—won’t follow through. You would have to be a complete imbecile to fumble that badly.
I mean, I’m an investor. I write and publish research. But I have no “experience” in this field beyond what I’ve physically for the past three years. I have no degree as I write this. Yet, I know for certain that my ideas are factual and that my strategy and processes work. So my point is—even if the candidate was some random guy on the street with no secondary education, but knew what he was talking about and had a clearly outlined plan—he’d still be a valuable contender.
I mean, for instance, imagine memorizing the chords to a song and repeating how to play the song precisely and clearly step-by-step. It would be hard to mess it up when you go about playing after that, wouldn’t it? You don’t need to have a private tutor—ergo, go to school—to figure the tune out.
And that’s Pierre Poilievre.
But all honesty, no matter who wins, Canada will be fine. Both candidates are immensely strong. Carney is not Trudeau, and Poilievre is not Trump.
And I’d like to clarify a few misconceptions before I end: These past 10 years were not a Liberal problem—they were a Trudeau problem. Trudeau was a terrible manager. Even though most of Carney’s policies on crime, immigration, and social issues are essentially copied from Trudeau, most of Carney’s economic policies are new—and now similar to that of the Conservative platform. He was an advisor, but Trudeau was the decision-maker. Trudeau obviously didn’t take much advice into account.
Likewise, Poilievre is not Trump. Trump, being an idiot on the fiscal, social, and economic fronts, is the complete opposite of Poilievre. Poilievre respects your rights, respects Canada, and has a plan outlined in great detail for how he plans to grow our nation—both economically on a broad level, and personally on the individual level when it comes to costs.
Voting between Carney and Poilievre is just a matter of how effective and how strong you want Canada to be over the next four years. And in my opinion, Pierre Poilievre is the one to choose. He is stronger with intention, clearer, more actionable with his steps, and much tougher on his proposed implemented policies. That’s what the facts say, and that’s who I’d vote for.
But that’s just me. Vote for who you want to vote for. Do with all of this information as you will.
Happy investing, everyone.
Happy voting.
Canada strong.
FINANCE
a. 🏦 BoC holds key interest rate
The Bank of Canada (BoC) held its key interest rate at 2.75% on Wednesday, pausing its reign of seven consecutive cuts. Governor Tiff Macklem said the pause allows the bank to assess any potential economic impact of U.S. tariffs and to remain ready to “act decisively” if needed to control inflation.
Due to the massive wave of uncertainty, the bank scrapped its economic forecasts. Instead, it ended up with two scenarios: (1) tariffs ease, leading to moderate growth and inflation falling to 1.5%; (2) a global trade war causes a deep recession and inflation spikes to 3.5% by mid-2026. Tough extremes, but that’s where we’re at right now. According to Macklem, they’re flexible at this time and could start cutting rates very soon if any weakness shows. The bank also expects weaker Q2 GDP and lower inflation in April, due to falling crude prices and the end of the consumer carbon tax.
b. 🤝 Figma files for American IPO
Figma has officially, confidentially filed for an IPO with the SEC, making a comeback in the news after the botched $20 billion merger with Adobe 16 months ago, which fell apart due to antitrust concerns. The IPO market has been shaken recently from Trump’s tariffs (as we all have been), so this is a sign for the better. The catch, of course, being that filing confidentially means there’s still a long road to an actual IPO. Time will tell.
Figma was last valued at $12.5 billion in April of 2024, with backing from Franklin Venture Partners, Thrive Capital, Sequoia, and Kleiner Perkins (all outstanding firms).
Related articles:
BUSINESS
c. 📺 Google ruled an ad tech monopoly
A U.S. judge ruled this week that Google illegally monopolized two key digital ad markets, yet another punch in the face to Google, also making it easier for the DOJ to push for a breakup of its businesses. Judge Leonie Brinkema was the judge in question, and found Google (and these are paraphrased quotes) “maintained monopoly power in publisher ad servers and exchanges, harming rivals, publishers, and consumers.”
A future hearing is set to determine any potential remedies, including forced breakups. But in the meantime, Google plans to appeal, saying, “publishers freely choose our tools for their simplicity and effectiveness.” (Which is true; Google is dominant because it has an effective ad platform as a consequence of a working product(s) used by billions.) The DOJ now wants Google to sell its Ad Manager unit as another compromise (in addition to claims over Chrome and Android).
Related articles:
d. 🧑⚖️ Meta’s acquisition antitrust trial
Meta’s antitrust trial on their WhatsApp and Instagram buyouts officially started this week, and testifying on Wednesday, CEO Mark Zuckerberg denied any claims that he “acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to eliminate competition,” and instead said it was because of the apps’ value and potential. Which, from internal emails, doesn’t fully add up (assuming the leaked emails are true).
The FTC argues Meta used its dominance to stifle competition and grow profits, with a compromise to break up its acquisitions (I sense a running theme). The trial will continue in the coming weeks, but it’s an interesting test of antitrust enforcement under President Trump, as he said throughout his campaign how he would be very anti-regulation for big tech. (All of the CEOs were sitting behind him at the inauguration, so Meta and Google might be spared here.)
Related articles:
📚 Book of the Week
For every book purchased using the links below, 100% of affiliate commissions are donated to charity. (Amount donated so far: $36.42.)
An investor’s bookshelf: Here.
Pierre Poilievre: A Political Life - Andrew Lawton
🇨🇦 It’s élection day in Canada a few weeks from now, and over the coming weeks leading up, I will be sharing three books written by or about the three major party leaders of the three main political choices for Canadians. I’m personally a Canadian, and most of those reading are Canadian, so it should be helpful.
Book Description:
He took aim at the country’s elites and “gatekeepers” as well as governments that sneer at their own citizens. Railing against the housing crisis and spiralling inflation, Poilievre was telling ordinary Canadians he was on their side. As the adopted son of two Alberta teachers, Poilievre knows the middle class.
But he’s also the embodiment of a career politician, having spent nearly his entire adult life in politics.
In Pierre Poilievre: A Political Life, journalist Andrew Lawton chronicles Poilievre’s life, career, and his unique brand of conservatism which has galvanized supporters and detractors alike. The portrait that emerges is of a radically authentic yet intensely calculating individual who has been plotting his path to be Canada’s prime minister since he was a teenager.
Thank you for reading, partner. If you enjoyed today’s issue, feel free to share it with friends and family. I’ve placed a button below for you to do so (right underneath the paid membership line (see what I did there).
All the best,
Jacob
All of my links here.
My best work is members-only. Don’t miss out on exclusive posts, insights and benefits—upgrade today and join the community.
I do not speak French. However, I watched the French debate to see if any candidate said things en français that was not included in the English debate.
More on China’s retaliation (useful to read)
(1) China 125% tariff, (2) Boeing retaliation, (3) critical minerals retaliation.
This is a whole story in and of itself. I tried to get a refund, but there’s no such thing sadly. My two cents: Never waste your money on a party membership unless you want to run in politics.
This is true. While many studies show housing as the largest cost for Canadians taking up 32% of income, taxes paid in a given year could go as high as 42% (I am not quite sure if this number is only income taxes, and if so, it is much higher in reality factoring all the other taxes Canadians pay in a given year). (Source)
This is accurate. Bill C-69 “prohibits proponents, subject to certain conditions, from carrying out a designated [energy] project[s] if the designated project is likely to cause certain environmental, health, social or economic effects, unless the Minister of the Environment or Governor in Council determines that those effects are in the public interest, taking into account the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada…” (Source)
Just catching up on reading after 2 weeks of sickness.
I believe Carney promised tax cuts as well. No? I might get be wrong. Can you please confirm?
Keep writing, Jacob!
I agree with you Jacob Carney is no Trudeau, he's worse. You do know he's been "advising" trudeau for the last 5 years? God help Canada if the sheeple vote in this Globalist!