Grounded -The PM’s plane is transformed into a metaphor

PAUL WELLS

Posted with permission from Paul Wells Substack

I stopped by the Conservative Convention on Thursday night, just briefly. The mood (which I ascertained by asking several Conservative acquaintances “What’s the mood?”) was cautiously optimistic. The Conservatives I met — a random sample, skewed older because I haven’t met a new generation of Conservative activists — sounded pleased with Pierre Poilievre’s summer. But they also figure they’re getting a second look because voters have given the Liberals a hundred looks and they always see the same thing.

Later, word came from India that Justin Trudeau’s airplane had malfunctioned, stranding him, one hopes only briefly. It’s always a drag when a politician’s vehicle turns into a metaphor so obvious it begs to go right into the headline. As for the cause of the breakdown, I’m no mechanic, but I’m gonna bet $20 on “The gods decided to smite Trudeau for hubris.” Here’s what the PM tweeted or xeeted before things started falling off his ride home:

One can imagine the other world leaders’ glee whenever this guy shows up. “Oh, it’s Justin Trudeau, here to push for greater ambition!” Shall we peer into their briefing binders? Let’s look at Canada’s performance on every single issue Trudeau mentions, in order.

Paul Wells is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Click here for Paul Wells substack

On climate change, Canada ranks 58th of 63 jurisdictions in the global Climate Change Performance Index. The country page for Canada uses the words “very low” three times in the first two sentences.

On gender equality, the World Economic Forum (!) ranks Canada 30th behind a bunch of other G-20 members.

On global health, this article in Britain’s BMJ journal calls Canada “a high income country that frames itself as a global health leader yet became one of the most prominent hoarders of the limited global covid-19 vaccine supply.”

On inclusive growth, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has a composite indicator called the Inclusive Growth Index. Canada’s value is 64.1, just behind the United States (!) and Australia, further behind most of Europe, stomped by Norway at 76.9%.

On support for Ukraine, the German Kiel Institute think tank ranks Canadafifth in the world, and third as a share of GDP, for financial support; and 8th in the world, or 21st as a share of GDP, for military support.

Almost all of these results are easy enough to understand. A small number are quite honourable. But none reads to me as any kind of license to wander around, administering lessons to other countries. I just finished reading John Williams’ luminous 1965 novel about university life, Stoner. A minor character in the book mocks the lectures and his fellow students, and eventually stands unmasked as a poser who hasn’t done even the basic reading in his discipline. I found the character strangely familiar. You’d think that after nearly a decade in power, after the fiascos of the UN Security Council bid, the first India trip, the collegiate attempt to impress a schoolgirl with fake trees, the prime minister would have figured out that fewer and fewer people, at home or abroad, are persuaded by his talk.

But this is part of the Liberals’ problem, isn’t it. They still think their moves work. They keep announcing stuff — Digital adoption program! Growth fund! Investment tax credits! Indo-Pacific strategy! Special rapporteur! — and telling themselves Canadians would miss this stuff if it went away. Whereas it’s closer to the truth to say we can’t miss it because its effect was imperceptible when it showed up.

In a moment I’ve mentioned before because it fascinates me, the Liberals called their play a year ago, as soon as they knew they’d be facing Pierre Poilievre. “We are going to see two competing visions,” Randy Boissonault said in reply to Poilievre’s first Question Period question as the Conservative leader. The events of the parliamentary year would spontaneously construct a massive contrast ad. It was the oldest play in the book, first articulated by Pierre Trudeau’s staff 50 years ago: Don’t compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative. It doesn’t work as well if people decide they prefer the alternative. It really doesn’t work if the team running the play think it means, “We’re the almighty.”

There may yet be years — two, anyway — before we get to vote in a general election. Obviously much can change. I’ve made it clear, just about every time I’ve written about specific Poilievre policies, that I’ve seen no reason to be optimistic that a change of government would guarantee any improvement in public administration. But what we’ve seen elsewhere — most spectacularly in provincial elections in Quebec and Ontario in 2018 — is that sometimes voters stop caring about that question. They have a simpler question: After a decade in power, does the government in place even notice large, obvious things?

I see the Liberal caucus will be in London, ON this week. Here’s a chance for them to practice noticing large, obvious things. MPs would do well to walk around the city’s downtown core after dark, east of Richmond St., between Dundas and York. If they travel in small groups they’ll probably be safe.

While they witness what a Canadian city looks like in 2023, they might remind themselves that their unofficial 2015 election slogan was “Better Is Always Possible.” And ask themselves how much trouble they’ll be in if voters still believe it.

Lately when I write about the Liberals I upset my Liberal subscribers and when I write about Conservatives I upset my Conservative subscribers. I know it can feel like shtick, but it reflects my conviction that the partisan joust, and the genuine feelings that underpin it, are easier to address than the wicked problems of a chaotic time. And therefore way too tempting to an entire generation of political leadership.

For the Liberals, the challenge has been obvious since 2019: Does Justin Trudeau learn? In 2015 he ran as a disruptor, a guy who had noticed large, obvious things — interest rates were low! Small deficits were more manageable than they had been in years ! — and was willing to be cheeky in ignoring the other parties’ orthodoxies. Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair were reduced to sputtering outrage that the new kid was making so many cheeky promises on fighter procurement (whoops), electoral reform (never mind), admitting Syrian refugees, legalizing cannabis, and more.

Since about 2017, inevitably, the Trudeau government has undergone a transition that’s common when disruptors become incumbents. He is increasingly forced to defend the state of things, rather than announcing he’s come to change it. He’s changed positions from forward to goal. All his opponents need to do is notice the big, obvious things he seems unable to see. The biggest: It’s become punishingly difficult for too many Canadians to put a roof over their head.

The old Trudeau would have done big, surprising things to show he could see such a thing. The Trudeau who ejected every senator from the Liberal caucus and broke a decade’s taboo against deficit spending would shut down the failed Canada Infrastructure Bank this week and put the savings into a national crisis housing fund. Or, I don’t know, some damned thing.

But of course, the surprising Trudeau of 2015 hadn’t been prime minister yet, had he? This hints at a question a few Liberals are starting to ask themselves. Does he have any juice left in him for more than pieties? He might still have some fight in him, but does he still have the job in him?

He’s already been in the job for longer than Pearson and Diefenbaker were. His indispensable right hand has been chief of staff longer than anyone who ever held the job. They have, for years, already been noticeably eager to administer lessons to others. Would they view a Liberal election defeat as their failure — or ours?

Would a prime minister who views a G-20 summit as a learning opportunity for every country except Canada view an election defeat as anything but further proof that Canada never really deserved him anyway?

This article is from Paul Wells substack.

For the full experience, click to subscribe to Paul Wells.

Click here to support the work of Paul Wells by subscribing to substack

Related Topics:#Grounded #JustinTrudeau #PaulWells feature

Up Next

From mass graves to mass hysteria

Don't Miss

Climate Fears and Political Smoke Screens

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

The book the carbon taxers don’t want you to read

Immigration / 1 hour ago

Immigrant background checks are unrelated to national security?

COVID-19 / 1 hour ago

Maxime Bernier slams Freedom Convoy leaders’ guilty verdict, calls Canada’s justice system ‘corrupt’

Carbon Tax

The book the carbon taxers don’t want you to read

Published on April 5, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

Prime Minister Mark Carney wrote a 500-page book praising carbon taxes.

Well, I just wrote a book smashing through the government’s carbon tax propaganda.

It tells the inside story of the fight against the carbon tax. And it’s THE book the carbon taxers don’t want you to read.

My book is called Axing the Tax: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Carbon Tax.

Axing the Tax: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Carbon Tax

Every now and then, the underdog wins one.

And it looks like that’s happening in the fight against the carbon tax.

It’s not over yet, but support for the carbon tax is crumbling. Some politicians vow to scrap it. Others hide behind vague plans to repackage it. But virtually everyone recognizes support for the current carbon tax has collapsed.

It wasn’t always this way.

For about a decade now, powerful politicians, government bureaucrats, academics, media elites and even big business have been pushing carbon taxes on the people.

But most of the time, politicians never asked the people if they supported carbon taxes. In other words, carbon taxes, and the resulting higher gas prices and heating bills, were forced on us.

We were told it was good for us. We were told carbon taxes were inevitable. We were told politicians couldn’t win elections without carbon taxes, even though the politicians that imposed them didn’t openly run on them. We were told that we needed to pay carbon taxes if we wanted to leave a healthy environment for our kids and grandkids. We were told we needed to pay carbon taxes if we wanted to be respected in the international community.

In this decade-long fight, it would have been understandable if the people had given up and given in to these claims. It would have been easier to accept what the elites wanted and just pay the damn bill. But against all odds, ordinary Canadians didn’t give up.

Canadians knew you could care about the environment and oppose carbon taxes. Canadians saw what they were paying at the gas station and on their heating bills, and they knew they were worse off, regardless of how many politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and academics tried to convince them otherwise. Canadians didn’t need advanced degrees in economics, climate science or politics to understand they were being sold a false bill of goods.

Making it more expensive for a mom in Port Hope to get to work, or grandparents in Toronto to pay their heating bill, or a student in Coquitlam to afford food won’t reduce emissions in China, Russia, India or the United States. It just leaves these Canadians, and many like them, with less money to afford everything else.

Ordinary Canadians understood carbon taxes amount to little more than a way for governments to take more money from us and dictate how we should live our lives. Ordinary Canadians also saw through the unfairness of the carbon tax.

Many of the elites pushing the carbon tax—the media, politicians, taxpayer-funded professors, laptop activists and corporate lobbyists—were well off and wouldn’t feel the brunt of carbon taxes. After all, living in a downtown condo and clamouring for higher carbon taxes doesn’t require much gas, diesel or propane.

But running a business, working in a shop, getting kids to soccer and growing food on the farm does. These are the Canadians the political class forgot about when pushing carbon taxes. These are the Canadians who never gave up. These are the Canadians who took time out of their busy lives to sign petitions, organize and attend rallies, share posts on social media, email politicians and hand out bumper stickers.

Because of these Canadians, the carbon tax could soon be swept onto the ash heap of history. I wrote this book for two reasons.

The first is because these ordinary Canadians deserve it. They worked really hard for a really long time against the odds. When all the power brokers in government told them, “Do what we say—or pay,” they didn’t give up. They deserve to know the time and effort they spent fighting the carbon tax mattered. They deserve all the credit.

Thank you for everything you did.

The second reason I wrote this book is so people know the real story of the carbon tax. The carbon tax was bad from the start and we fought it from the start. By reading this book, you will get the real story about the carbon tax, a story you won’t find anywhere else.

This book is important because if the federal Liberals’ carbon tax is killed, the carbon taxers will try to lay blame for their defeat on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. They will try to say that carbon taxes are a good idea, but Trudeau bungled the policy or wasn’t a good enough salesman. They will try to revive the carbon tax and once again make you pay more for gas, groceries, and home heating.

Just like with any failed five-year plan, there is a lingering whiff among the laptop class and the taxpayer-funded desk rulers that this was all a communication problem, that the ideal carbon tax hasn’t been tried yet. I can smell it outside my office building in Ottawa, where I write these words. We can’t let those embers smoulder and start a fire again.

This book shows why the carbon tax is and always will be bad policy for ordinary Canadians.

Franco’s note: You can pre-order a copy of my new book, Axing the Tax: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Carbon Tax, here: https://www.amazon.ca/Axing-Tax-Rise-Canadas-Carbon

Immigration

Immigrant background checks are unrelated to national security?

Published on April 5, 2025

Todayville

By David L. Thomas for Inside Policy

Canadians are rightly under the impression that migrants have been properly vetted before coming into our country. But it’s clear we’re not living up to expectations.

A recently de-classified 2022 report of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) suggests we’ve entirely misplaced our priorities when it comes to protecting Canadians from foreigners with dangerous backgrounds. Apparently referring prospective immigrants from places in the world beset with violent extremism for deeper background checks could constitute discrimination against those individuals that is “not justifiable on security grounds.”

Arbitrary discrimination on a prohibited ground is wrong. However, it is obviously important, for example, for the government to conduct proper security checks when we admit people into Canada as immigrants. There are times when certain discrimination might be warranted.

Essentially, for fear of being accused of discrimination, our national security oversight committee has deemed that checking prospective immigrants for ties to terrorist organizations is not a matter of national security. This is plainly absurd and is a grave risk to our national security.

The decision-style report of the NSIRA tribunal related to a group of complaints before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). The large group of complainants were citizens of Iran seeking temporary or permanent visas to Canada and who were subjected to security background checks. They alleged discrimination on the basis of race and that the CSIS checks delayed the processing of their visa applications (reported by NSIRA as an average delay of 14 days for temporary visas and 26 days for immigration visas). Iran is a country with which we have no diplomatic relations and we have designated as a state sponsor of terrorism since 2012.

Without the resources of CSIS and a deeper security check, how could an immigration officer in the field determine if a visa applicant may have once been a member of a terrorist organization, like al-Qaeda, or a drug cartel? CSIS security checks are designed to look deeper into an individual’s background, sometimes with the co-operation of foreign spy agencies.

These complaints came across my desk in the final months of my term as the Chairperson of the CHRT. Having previously practiced immigration law for more than 20 years, I was well aware of CSIS security background checks. My expectation was that the NSIRA would recommend dismissal of the complaints because, well of course, checking whether a prospective immigrant is connected to a terrorist organization has to be related to the security of Canada, no?

Apparently not.

The CHRT complaints were suspended under a never-before-used section of the CHRA. Under Section 45, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada gave notice “that the (alleged discriminatory) practice to which the complaint relates was based on considerations relating to the security of Canada.” Despite this notice, the Human Rights Commission declined to dismiss the complaints and instead referred the matter to the NSIRA to provide a report on the matter.

The NSIRA report was the first of its kind and acknowledged there is little legislative guidance on the nature of its role under a Section 45 referral. However, in my view, the NSIRA has usurped the role of the CHRT by determining that the criteria applied for requesting the CSIS background checks “was not justifiable on security grounds.” In my view, their determination should have been limited to only whether the alleged discriminatory practices related to national security.

Nevertheless, the complaints are now proceeding before the CHRT to determine if it was discriminatory to make referrals for security background checks.

Arbitrary discrimination is, in most cases, against the law. However, there are exceptions, and one of them is Section 45 of the CHRA which creates a “carve out” from the normal rules when a matter of national security is on the line. And yet, the NSIRA decision bizarrely set aside national security and failed to grant the exception.

Canada has drastically increased its intake of migrants in recent years. Since 2021, the annual target for permanent residents was almost doubled to 500,000. Non-immigrant foreigners, mostly students and temporary workers, accounted for 2.5 million people, or 6.2% or the population in 2023. As these are people entering Canada legally, Canadians are rightly under the impression that migrants have been properly vetted before coming into our country. But it’s clear we’re not living up to expectations.

Canada recently admitted Muhammad Shahzeb Khan from Pakistan, accused of plotting a massive attack against Jews in New York last October. When this news broke Canada was still reeling from the embarrassment of having just granted Canadian citizenship to Ahmed Fouad Mostafa Eldidi. Along with his son, Mostafa Eldidi, he was arrested in July last year as the pair was accused of being in the advanced stages of planning a violent attack on behalf of ISIS in Toronto. Apparently, Ahmed appears in a 2015 video dismembering an ISIS prisoner with a sword.

All prospective immigrants to Canada are subject to checks for past criminal activity. However, sometimes an immigration officer might flag an applicant for a security screening by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to determine if a visa applicant has ties to terrorist groups, espionage, war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc.

In order to protect Canada, immigration officers in the field should have the unfettered discretion to refer any non-Canadian for a CSIS security background check. The referral is not a denial of entry into Canada. Applicants are just being asked to wait a little longer until we’re satisfied about their background. Immigration officers should not be second-guessing themselves about this discretion for fear of a human rights complaint.

Now is the time for Canada to set its priorities right. Our national security must be paramount and should not be hamstrung by unrealistic idealism.

David Thomas, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, is a lawyer and mediator in British Columbia. From 2014 to 2021, he was the chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.