Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Tuesday-night Trudeau

Published

17 minute read

Justin Trudeau at Gatineau Airport, Oct 24 – Photo by PW

Posted with permission from Paul Wells


Justin Trudeau in a hangar, before the comeback, if there’s going to be one

If Justin Trudeau’s historic comeback happens, it will start sometime after Tuesday night, when he spoke to a Liberal Party of Canada fundraiser at the one-runway Gatineau Airport, 21 minutes’ drive from Rideau Cottage on the Quebec side of the river.

The prime minister is two months short of his 52nd birthday. Brian Mulroney was not quite 54 when he became the youngest undefeated prime minister, so far, to announce his retirement from politics. This is the sort of week when I look up numbers like that.

The polls since summer haven’t been kind to the Liberals. I have readers who get cross with me when I mention polls, but I cover the most polling-obsessed government in Canada’s history, and I must decline requests to unilaterally disarm.

Trudeau and his ministers do fundraisers all the time, as do the leaders and prominent MPs in other parties. The only difference on Tuesday was that I went to watch. After some embarrassing early headlines about fundraisers soon after the 2015 election, the Liberal Party changed its rules to increase transparency in fundraising. Now reporters get advance notice whenever Trudeau will be speaking at a fundraiser. I wanted to see what Trudeau says at such things these days, precisely because they’re routine events. Hearing how the prime minister talks to friendlies on a Tuesday night near home was, perhaps, the closest I could get to hearing how he talks to himself.

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

This event was a fundraiser for Gatineau MP Steven MacKinnon, a former Liberal Party national director who is serving as the government’s house leader while Karina Gould is on maternity leave. Two cabinet ministers were on hand too, Jean-Yves Duclos and Anita Anand. An organizer told the audience he’d been asked to get a smallish crowd out, “a good 50 or so;” since 67 people bought tickets, he was pretty pleased. The party had announced a ticket price up to $1,500. The crowd was of the sort that routinely gets described as overwhelmingly white and male when it’s a Conservative event, which means it was overwhelmingly white and male, but Liberal.

Trudeau spoke for twelve minutes. He opened by saying nice things about MacKinnon and thanked the two cabinet ministers. Poor Duclos thought he was just out to socialize, Trudeau joked, but Duclos is the minister of public services and procurement, “and around here we talk about a bridge.” Gales of laughter from the crowd. The riding association guy had also mentioned a bridge. There has been endless talk about a sixth bridge between Ottawa and Gatineau; neighbours near the various possible routes are leery, but a lot of people hope a new bridge would improve traffic flow, which often includes bumper-to-bumper heavy trucks on ordinary streets through the middle of Ottawa. A lot of the people who want the bridge the most run businesses. Judging from the PM’s choice of comic patter, they won’t have to wait long.

Trudeau thanked the crowd for coming out. “I know very well that everyone has plenty of choices for the various activities they could undertake on a Tuesday night in the month of October,” he said. This may have flattered the selection of fun activities in Gatineau on a Tuesday.

“You chose to come participate in a democratic event,” Trudeau continued. This was an instinct he could only applaud: “We know very well these days that it’s not always very motivating to get involved in politics. To raise your hand and say, ‘No, no, no, I want to participate in our democracy in an active and involved way. To take part in the conversations we’re having as a country in these difficult moments.’”

Trudeau contrasted this positive spirit with what certain other people, so far unnamed, like to do. “It’s very easy to point our finger at politicians, to complain about inflation or the pandemic or interest rates or labour shortages or housing or all these issues. It’s very easy, and many people decide to turn toward anger, anxiety, fear or division. Because it really pays over the short term, in politics, to rely on fear and division. But it’s so much more important to have a responsible, sensible approach, anchored in shared values. To try to bring us together rather than to divide us in an attempt to win a few points in the polls.”

One sensed an emerging central theme of contrast. “Your choice to come tonight to this Liberal event is enormously touching to me,” Trudeau said. “Because for eight years now, we’ve tried to be a government that stayed rooted in real things. In facts. In shared values. We bring people together rather than divide them for strategic reasons.”

Not only does his government, in his telling, think like good people, it does things good people will like.

“We manage to deliver for people. Even in extremely difficult moments like the ones we’re living through. People are struggling, because of the global context, extremely complex geopolitics that have a direct impact on pocketbooks, on groceries and rent. We have an important role to play as a government, to respond to today’s needs. That’s why we’ve made investments to help people pay their bills, to increase competition among the big grocers. We’re there to provide more daycare spaces. We’re there to help with dental care. We’re there to help with the Canada Child Benefit, which has lifted half a million children out of poverty in recent years. We’re there to create economic growth even as we fight against climate change.”

His audience for the night being mostly Quebecers and, as far as I could tell, mostly in business, the Liberal leader refined his course of general flattery to one of specific business-oriented flattery.

“I’m very proud of what we’ve been able to deliver in Quebec: NorthvoltRio TintoREM… These are investments that show how much — here in Quebec where we’ve always understood that environmental protection and economic growth go together — everyone can make progress together.”

This was a pretty upbeat message, as partisan messages often are — we have the right ideas and the right results, and the other team is trying to wreck it all — but here again, as when he lamented how “not very motivating” the political life can be, Trudeau introduced a distinctly mournful note.

“As usual, it’s a bigger challenge to get this message out in the rest of Canada,” he said. At the risk of talking about polls, I couldn’t help thinking Trudeau was referring to recent pee oh ell ells that show Quebec as the only part of the country where his Liberals are in the lead. Despite big federal spending on Volkswagen ($13 billion) and Stellantis (probably more), the clean green future seems not to tempt a lot of Canadians. “It still feels far off, because the day-to-day is still difficult for many Canadians,” he said. “But we know very well that a society and a future are built step by step.…When we stay optimistic, when we’re reasonable, everything becomes possible in the future.”

Share

This, he said, summing up, was “the political debate we’re having now…. Within two years — probably in two years — we’ll have elections.” That’s when people will get a chance to choose directions.

“Will we go back to the Conservative ways of trickle-down, cuts to social programs, advantages for the well-off in the hopes that they’ll eventually give everyone opportunity? It’s never worked and it won’t work better now.” Or would voters stick with the government Trudeau sees in the mirror? “We’re going to stay responsible but we’re going to keep investing,” he said.

Only now, at the end of his remarks, did Trudeau switch from French to English. “It’s always an incredible pleasure to spend time with people who are dedicated every day to building stronger communities and a stronger country.” And that was the end of that. The applause lasted for sixteen seconds. PMO staff led reporters out of the room — our access ends when the big guy stops talking.

A few observations on all this.

First, I’m struck by the way Trudeau narrowed down his expectation of election timing: “Within two years — probably in two years.” Probably anyone in a position of responsibility in any party would say an election could come any time, it’s wise to be ready, and so on. But in Trudeau’s mind, the supply and confidence agreement with the NDP seems likely to hold. He is not in a rush. Judgment Day isn’t until 2025.

Second, if he’s getting any advice to hit pause on carbon taxes, he sure doesn’t sound like he’s getting ready to take the advice. The heart of his case for himself is the notion that you can have clean energy and a thriving economy, and indeed that the latter depends on the former. That argument doesn’t require a carbon tax — theoretically, if you subsidize enough battery plants gasoline will become obsolete — but nothing in Trudeau’s fundraiser stump speech sounded like he was laying the predicate for a major retreat on carbon taxes.


BIG HONKING UPDATE, MINUTES LATER:

The feds have made a large announcement that shows the risks in making predictions. I quote:

“The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced the government is moving ahead with doubling the pollution price rebate (Climate Action Incentive Payment) rural top-up rate, increasing it from 10 to 20 per cent of the baseline amount starting in April 2024. People who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure would help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city.

“Given the pressures faced by households and small businesses that use oil heating, the Prime Minister also announced that the government is moving ahead with a temporary, three-year pause to the federal price on pollution (fuel charge) on deliveries of heating oil in all jurisdictions where the federal fuel charge is in effect. This pause would begin 14 days from today. While the fuel charge is already returned to consumers through the pollution price rebate, this temporary pause would save a household that uses heating oil $250 at the current rate, on average, while the federal government works with provinces to roll out heat pumps and phase out oil for heating over the longer term.”


Third, and more generally, the case Trudeau was building was for more of the same. “It still feels far off, because the day-to-day is still difficult for many Canadians,” he said, which is how you talk when you’re hoping your ship comes in before people get a chance to pass judgment.

Incidentally, here I think it’s only fair to point out there’s been recent progress on files I often point to as evidence that Liberal plans never pan out. The Canada Growth Fund, the object of this newsletter’s first post, made its first investment this week, a $90 million equity play in a Calgary geothermal energy company. The Canada-US Energy Transformation Task Force held a second meeting. Maybe two years of process news like that will add up to an electorate that’s excited about Canada’s energy transformation. I mean, it’s possible.

Most of all, I was struck by how “more of the same” had better work for the Liberals, because if the boss has a better idea, he’s hiding it well. A leader who once ran on cost-of-living issues…

… is now running on the clean-energy future that feels tantalizingly out of reach, and lamenting his opponent’s insistence on running on cost-of-living issues. His best hunch about timing is that he has no reason to rush, and his best assessment of his work to date is that he needs to do more of it.

Liberals who feel more of a sense of urgency, futility or wasted energy will just have to get on board, I guess. The leader’s not for turning.

Subscribe to Paul Wells

Thousands of paid subscribers

Politics and culture as though they mattered.

Opinion

Blind to the Left: Canada’s Counter-Extremism Failure Leaves Neo-Marxist and Islamist Threats Unchecked

Published on

By Ian Bradbury

Incidents like the 2022 Coastal GasLink attack, the December 2023 Ottawa plot against Jewish events and the January 2024 Edmonton City Hall attack underscore the stakes, yet they fade from public discourse without rigorous analysis. This is not mere oversight—it is a systemic failure of Canada’s counter-radicalization and extremism frameworks and media, exposing the nation to risks from under-assessed threats.

In June 2025, a former British Columbia civil liberties leader—forced to resign in 2021 for rhetoric deemed too extreme even by the province’s NDP government—re-emerged to lead a protest outside the Canada Border Services Agency offices in Vancouver. Her earlier praise of Hamas attackers’ hang-glider tactics as “beautiful” and her call to “burn it all down” amid the 2021 church arsons across Canada raise a critical question: Is this the sign of a deeper ideological current gaining momentum beneath the surface?

Canada faces a mounting crisis of radicalization and extremism, yet its citizens remain largely uninformed or, worse, misinformed.

Despite tens of millions invested in counter-radicalization over the past decade, threats from extremist elements within the Pro-Palestinian movement, the “Hands Off Iran” protests, and left-wing extremism receive insufficient scrutiny.

The “Hands Off Iran” demonstrations on June 22, 2025, which rallied hundreds in support of the Iranian regime—planned before U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and organized by many of the same protest groups active since October 7, 2023—highlight this neglect.

The absence of detailed reporting obscures their scope and significance. Incidents like the January 2024 Edmonton City Hall attack and the December 2023 Ottawa plot against Jewish events underscore the stakes, yet they fade from public discourse without rigorous analysis.

This is not mere oversight—it is a systemic failure of Canada’s counter-radicalization and extremism frameworks and media, exposing the nation to risks from under-assessed threats.

Under-assessed Threats in Plain Sight

Pro-Palestinian rallies in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal reveal this gap. Flags of Hamas and Hezbollah—designated terrorist groups in Canada—have been displayed openly, and chants of “Death to Canada”“Death to America”, and “Death to Israel, Death to Jews” have been reported, yet government-funded organizations offer no in-depth analysis of the radical networks or rhetoric tied to these events.

The “Hands Off Iran” protests face the same silence. Where are the detailed reports dissecting these movements? Where are the network maps or guides to their flags, symbols, and rhetoric, as seen for far-right groups?

Similarly, Left-wing accelerationism, an neo-marxist ideology advocating violent societal collapse, has fueled incidents like the 2022 Coastal GasLink attack, the 2021 church arsons, and anti-colonial criminal acts, yet it is overshadowed and downplayed by coverage of far-right threats, such as militant “right-wing accelerationism”. Two cases illustrate the broad urgency: the Edmonton attack, involving gunfire and a Molotov cocktail, included a video supporting Palestine and condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza, but was downplayed as “salad-bar extremism.”

The Ottawa plot, inspired by Islamic extremism and the Israel-Palestine conflict, vanished from headlines with alarming speed. These incidents demand thorough investigation, not dismissal.

A Counter-Radicalization Industry Misaligned

Canada’s counter-radicalization efforts fail to address the full spectrum of threats. Organizations such as the Canadian Centre for the Prevention of Radicalization Leading to Violence and the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (an organization linked to the extremist decentralized Antifa movement) focus heavily on far-right extremism and limited Islamic threats (e.g., ISIS and Al-Qaeda), while sidelining left-wing extremism, accelerationism, anarchist extremism, and broader Islamic extremism.

Despite Canada’s 2024 designations of the IRGC and Samidoun as terrorist entities, these threats receive minimal attention compared to the detailed profiling of far-right networks in Canada. Detailed radicalization or extremist assessment reports on Edmonton or Ottawa? Virtually nonexistent. Further compounding the challenge, Canada’s reliance on foreign groups like the UK’s ICSRISDMoonshot, or Meta’s GIFCT—partly funded by Canadian taxpayers—skews focus away from nuanced, Canada centered, counter-radicalization and extremism priorities.

Certain initiatives, such as Moonshot’s redirect program, which was found to have directed individuals vulnerable to right-wing radicalization to curated content from an anarchist and convicted human trafficker with ties to Russian organized crime, likely exacerbated rather than mitigated the risks it intended to reduce. This prompts a critical question: Why does Canada entrust so much of its counter-radicalization and extremism initiatives to external entities that are unaccountable to its citizens?

Media coverage only compounds the problem.

The Edmonton attack’s Palestine-linked video was buried under vague labeling, and the Ottawa plot faded without follow-up. Extremist symbols at rallies are treated as backdrop, unlike the 2022 convoy protests, which prompted detailed government-funded analyses of symbols, rhetoric, and networks, that were amplified by media.

Exacerbating the challenges, Public Safety Canada’s Listed Terrorist Entities page lists groups but lacks guides to their symbols, terms, or networks, leaving Canadians ill-equipped to identify threats. This is not journalism or governance—it is a failure to connect evident and observable dots.

CSIS and the RCMP have raised alarms about Iranian- and Palestinian-linked threats, in addition to Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel’s claim of hundreds of IRGC operatives active in Canada. The 2024 designations of the IRGC, linked to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and Samidoun, tied to Palestinian extremism, confirm these risks. CSIS has flagged Iranian-backed influence networks, and the RCMP thwarted plots like the Ottawa conspiracy.

Yet, these warnings rarely translate into robust public understanding, leaving Canadians vulnerable to acknowledged and observable threats.

A Path Forward: Immediate Accountability

The U.S. bombardment of Iranian nuclear sites has heightened these risks, with reports of Iranian sleeper cells in North America adding urgency. Canada must act swiftly to address all threats—left-wing, Islamic, and far-right—with equal rigor.

Detailed, unclassified reports on incidents like Edmonton and Ottawa, alongside network analyses of domestic protest and disruption movements, must become standard. Furthermore, Public Safety Canada should enhance its Listed Terrorist Entities page with guides to symbols, flags, rhetoric, and networks, drawing on allied nations’ open-source models for rapid implementation. Federal funding for counter-radicalization groups must mandate balanced, actionable reporting across all threats, verified through regular audits.

Canada’s skewed approach to extremism is a profound national security vulnerability. Left-wing extremism and accelerationism, pervasive Islamic extremism, and attacks on Jewish institutions fester unaddressed, while rallies including support for listed terrorist groups evade scrutiny.

The counter-radicalization sector, media, and government share responsibility for this dangerous oversight. As global tensions rise and domestic risks evolve, the cost of inaction grows steeper, leaving Canada vulnerable to the next strike. What message does Canada send by prioritizing some threats while overlooking others that are active and evident?

And what will the reckoning be when a skilled attacker, emboldened by this neglect, slips through the cracks?

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

MxM News

UPenn strips Lia Thomas of women’s swimming titles after Title IX investigation

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

UPenn will strip Lia Thomas of women’s swimming titles and apologize to impacted athletes in a Title IX settlement with the Department of Education, following a Trump-led investigation and funding freeze.

Key Details:

  • The Department of Education announced Tuesday that UPenn will restore all Division I swimming records, titles, and recognitions to the biological women who earned them prior to Lia Thomas’s participation.
  • The university will also issue personal apology letters to each affected female swimmer and release a public statement affirming that biological males will no longer be allowed to compete in women’s sports.
  • The agreement follows a Trump administration order in March that froze $175 million in federal funding to UPenn pending a Title IX investigation. UPenn’s total federal funding exceeds $1 billion annually.

Diving Deeper:

On Tuesday, the Department of Education announced that the University of Pennsylvania had entered into a formal resolution agreement to address violations of Title IX, the federal law barring sex-based discrimination in education. The action stems from UPenn’s decision to allow Lia Thomas, a male athlete who identifies as transgender, to compete in women’s collegiate swimming events—an action the Trump administration deemed unlawful under Title IX protections.

According to the Department’s statement, UPenn will be required to restore “all individual UPenn Division I swimming records, titles, or similar recognitions” to the female athletes who were displaced by Thomas’s participation. The university must also send “a personalized letter of apology to each impacted female swimmer” and issue a broader public acknowledgment of its policy change: biological males will no longer be permitted to compete in women’s athletic programs.

The move marks the latest step in a months-long standoff between the Ivy League institution and the Trump administration. In March, the administration placed a hold on $175 million in federal funding allocated to UPenn, pending the outcome of an investigation into the school’s compliance with Title IX. That funding freeze was part of a broader executive order signed by President Donald Trump in February, which mandated that federal funds be withheld from schools allowing transgender athletes to compete against women.

Former UPenn swimmer Paula Scanlan, who was part of the team during Thomas’s controversial tenure, praised the outcome. “As a former UPenn swimmer who had to compete against and share a locker room with a male athlete, I am deeply grateful to the Trump Administration for refusing to back down on protecting women and girls and restoring our rightful accolades,” she said. “I am also pleased that my alma mater has finally agreed to take not only the lawful path, but the honorable one.”

Riley Gaines, a prominent women’s sports advocate and former NCAA swimmer, also applauded the agreement. “From day one, President Trump and Secretary McMahon vowed to protect women and girls, and today’s agreement with UPenn is a historic display of that promise being fulfilled,” Gaines said. “This Administration does not just pay lip service to women’s equality: it vigorously insists on that equality being upheld.”

The totality of UPenn’s federal funding—around $1 billion annually—could have been at risk had the university refused to comply. Instead, the school has agreed to the terms laid out by the Department of Education and will now be expected to implement new compliance policies to ensure continued eligibility for federal funds.

This resolution is one of the first high-profile enforcement actions under Trump’s revised Title IX policy, and it sends a clear signal: schools that violate protections for women’s sports face real consequences.

Continue Reading

Trending

X