Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

National

Paul Wells: Perhaps Freeland isn’t the victim here. Perhaps it’s Freeland who set Trudeau up

Published

11 minute read

Made, perhaps, of sterner stuff?

Paul Wells

The minister of everything

Did Trudeau just blink?

And now we interrupt my own previously-quiet Sunday night for some rampant speculation. There is a lot going on. I am left to generate hypotheses that might explain some of it.

On Sunday night we watched the last two episodes of The Madness on Netflix (stylish but not entirely persuasive), then it came time to check the headlines, as one does in Ottawa after Netflix.

Holy frijoles: Sean Fraser is said to be leaving the federal cabinet and, when the time comes, federal politics altogether. This is surprising but plausible: the 338Canada projection (which, always remember, is not based on local polling, it’s just an extrapolation, but still) has him 17 points behind the Conservatives in his Central Nova riding, he’s got young children, and one wiseacre wrote 14 months ago that we should expect talent to leave this government:

The temptation of BMO

The temptation of BMO

·
October 16, 2023
Read full story

But that wasn’t even nearly the night’s biggest big-if-true story: John Ivison is reporting from his tropical outpost that Chrystia Freeland’s getting ready to deliver a fiscal update without the profligate, unworkable free-cheque plan. That’s the $250 “working Canadians rebate” described in this backgrounder, which I should now maybe screenshoot because who knows whether it’ll be there in the morning.

Instead I screenshot Chris Selley on X, who is reliably entertaining:

But here’s where the speculation begins. I’m not sure “they” tried and failed. I think there’s another hypothesis that fits the available data.


The double-reverse Morneau?

It’s been less than a week since the Globe published an article on “tensions” between the PMO and Freeland’s office over “GST holiday, $250 cheques.” The piece, by Globe Ottawa bureau chief Bob Fife and reporter Marieke Walsh, quoted many unnamed sources to the effect that “tensions have risen between Ms. Freeland’s office and the PMO over spending.”

You might say all of this appears to be similar to what happened with Ms. Freeland’s predecessor, Bill Morneau, before he departed the government in 2020. If so, you must be one senior Liberal, because Fife and Walsh quote “one senior Liberal” who says the current situation “appears to be similar to what happened with Ms. Freeland’s predecessor, Bill Morneau, before he departed the government in 2020.”

And indeed, the story was strongly reminiscent of the extraordinary moment, which I can still hardly believe, when a bored Prime Minister had his lackeys organize a leak campaign against his own finance minister during a global fiscal calamity in 2020. Then as now, reporters were breathlessly informed that Trudeau had, at some point, even managed to get The Great Mark Carney on the phone, as if that could justify anything.

(Indeed, one of the underappreciated aspects of Trudeau’s 2020 ejection of Morneau was the way Carney wandered through the story, entirely oblivious, before simply vanishing.)

So Tuesday’s Fife/Walsh story triggered much outrage in Ottawa circles. How dare the PMO set up another finance minister? And a woman at that, even as Trudeau himself was parading as a champion of feminism?

But if Ivison is correct that the cheques will be gone from Monday’s fall update, that leaves open a very different possibility.

Perhaps Freeland isn’t the victim here. Perhaps it’s Freeland who set Trudeau up.

Subscribe to Paul Wells at $5 a month or $50 a year, and lock in that rate before I hike it in the New Year.

Indeed, the quotes nearest the top of Fife and Walsh’s story suggest that at least some of their sources are not mere PMO conduits, but rather people who have spent some time energetically rolling their eyes at the PM’s behaviour. “The sources say the idea for a sales-tax break… was driven by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), as was the pledge to send $250 benefit cheques,” the reporters write. “The Finance Department viewed the $6.28-billion plan as fiscally unwise, with one source saying Finance officials described the GST holiday as making little economic sense.

The Globe story does point out that the NDP supports the (also profligate, also unworkable) point-of-sale GST “holiday) but not the $250 cheques, because the NDP, like the Bloc, wants the cheques to go to more people, including seniors. My revered colleague Occam of Razor would say that’s the only explanation anyone needs for the apparent climbdown on the cheques: it’s only prudent to take everything out of a fiscal plan that might lead to a minority government’s defeat in the Commons.

But the tone of Tuesday’s Globe story, the moment of its appearance, and the apparent result — the wreck of the cheque plan — suggest this may be a case of something everyone in Ottawa has seen many times during the Trudeau government: a tactical decision to take a private dispute public, because if there’s one thing that can get this PMO’s attention, it’s an embarrassing headline.

Again, I need to emphasize: I don’t know Fife and Walsh’s sources or their motives. I have found that speculation about a reporter’s anonymous sources is usually just bad guesswork. And the repeated mentions in the Globe story of its “ten sources” suggests the reporters pieced together their account from several sources, that they weren’t passive conduits for anyone.

But as I’ve written a few times in the past, many organizations that deal with this government learned along ago that it is pointless to hope that their concerns will be addressed through routine channels. Instead, you have a much better chance of getting satisfaction by escalating your file out of a dusty cabinet and onto the front page of the Globe and Mail. As I wrote here more than two years ago:

“Everybody knows that if the government of Canada is doing something they don’t like, they should tell a reporter about it, because the government of Canada will instantly reverse course to make the bad headline stop hurting. Issues management squads have the only autonomy in this government. They react to headlines as Dracula did to garlic. This realization is now baked into the procedural book of everyone who deals with this government in any capacity — and, plainly, of increasing numbers of people who work inside it.”

Imagine reading Tuesday’s Globe story if you work in the PMO and you’re not actively scheming to get Chrystia Freeland out of the government. The story would be full of surprises for you: (1) the cheque plan is despised by the Finance Department; (2) somebody is mighty eager to make sure everyone knows it was your idea; (3) somebody is talking about the government losing its finance minister. If you don’t have Carney lined up to take the job, the prospect of a looming vacancy starts to look more like a threat than an opportunity.

Buy someone a gift subscription

I first met Chrystia Freeland in 1999, when she began a brief stint as deputy editor of the Globe and Mail. (Fife was then working for the Globe’s crosstown rivals at the National Post, as was I.) To say the least, I’ve seen little in recent years that suggests Freeland is a superb communications tactician. But brushing a stunned or recalcitrant PMO back by escalating a story onto the Globe’s front page doesn’t take a deft touch, either. These days, it seems just about everyone can do it.

Anyway, that’s my speculation. Here’s what we know, or will if these stories are confirmed on Monday: Trudeau has formidable resources available to keep himself in his cabinet, but he has no particular such influence over his ministers. All of whom are now being reminded of their autonomy by the example of Fraser. And a multi-billion-dollar scheme that seemed, only days ago, to be the point of the fall update now seems unlikely to be implemented.

 

Invite your friends and earn rewards

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

Invite Friends

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

Alberta

Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert

Published on

From Resource Now

By

Alberta renews call for West Coast oil pipeline amid shifting federal, geopolitical dynamics.

Just six months ago, talk of resurrecting some version of the Northern Gateway pipeline would have been unthinkable. But with the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. and Mark Carney in Canada, it’s now thinkable.

In fact, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seems to be making Northern Gateway 2.0 a top priority and a condition for Alberta staying within the Canadian confederation and supporting Mark Carney’s vision of making Canada an Energy superpower. Thanks to Donald Trump threatening Canadian sovereignty and its economy, there has been a noticeable zeitgeist shift in Canada. There is growing support for the idea of leveraging Canada’s natural resources and diversifying export markets to make it less vulnerable to an unpredictable southern neighbour.

“I think the world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump got elected in November,” Smith said at a keynote address Wednesday at the Global Energy Show Canada in Calgary. “I think that’s changed the national conversation.” Smith said she has been encouraged by the tack Carney has taken since being elected Prime Minister, and hopes to see real action from Ottawa in the coming months to address what Smith said is serious encumbrances to Alberta’s oil sector, including Bill C-69, an oil and gas emissions cap and a West Coast tanker oil ban. “I’m going to give him some time to work with us and I’m going to be optimistic,” Smith said. Removing the West Coast moratorium on oil tankers would be the first step needed to building a new oil pipeline line from Alberta to Prince Rupert. “We cannot build a pipeline to the west coast if there is a tanker ban,” Smith said. The next step would be getting First Nations on board. “Indigenous peoples have been shut out of the energy economy for generations, and we are now putting them at the heart of it,” Smith said.

Alberta currently produces about 4.3 million barrels of oil per day. Had the Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Energy East pipelines been built, Alberta could now be producing and exporting an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. The original Northern Gateway Pipeline — killed outright by the Justin Trudeau government — would have terminated in Kitimat. Smith is now talking about a pipeline that would terminate in Prince Rupert. This may obviate some of the concerns that Kitimat posed with oil tankers negotiating Douglas Channel, and their potential impacts on the marine environment.

One of the biggest hurdles to a pipeline to Prince Rupert may be B.C. Premier David Eby. The B.C. NDP government has a history of opposing oil pipelines with tooth and nail. Asked in a fireside chat by Peter Mansbridge how she would get around the B.C. problem, Smith confidently said: “I’ll convince David Eby.”

“I’m sensitive to the issues that were raised before,” she added. One of those concerns was emissions. But the Alberta government and oil industry has struck a grand bargain with Ottawa: pipelines for emissions abatement through carbon capture and storage.

The industry and government propose multi-billion investments in CCUS. The Pathways Alliance project alone represents an investment of $10 to $20 billion. Smith noted that there is no economic value in pumping CO2 underground. It only becomes economically viable if the tradeoff is greater production and export capacity for Alberta oil. “If you couple it with a million-barrel-per-day pipeline, well that allows you $20 billion worth of revenue year after year,” she said. “All of a sudden a $20 billion cost to have to decarbonize, it looks a lot more attractive when you have a new source of revenue.” When asked about the Prince Rupert pipeline proposal, Eby has responded that there is currently no proponent, and that it is therefore a bridge to cross when there is actually a proposal. “I think what I’ve heard Premier Eby say is that there is no project and no proponent,” Smith said. “Well, that’s my job. There will be soon.  “We’re working very hard on being able to get industry players to realize this time may be different.” “We’re working on getting a proponent and route.”

At a number of sessions during the conference, Mansbridge has repeatedly asked speakers about the Alberta secession movement, and whether it might scare off investment capital. Alberta has been using the threat of secession as a threat if Ottawa does not address some of the province’s long-standing grievances. Smith said she hopes Carney takes it seriously. “I hope the prime minister doesn’t want to test it,” Smith said during a scrum with reporters. “I take it seriously. I have never seen separatist sentiment be as high as it is now. “I’ve also seen it dissipate when Ottawa addresses the concerns Alberta has.” She added that, if Carney wants a true nation-building project to fast-track, she can’t think of a better one than a new West Coast pipeline. “I can’t imagine that there will be another project on the national list that will generate as much revenue, as much GDP, as many high paying jobs as a bitumen pipeline to the coast.”

Continue Reading

Business

Carney’s European pivot could quietly reshape Canada’s sovereignty

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Isidoros Karderinis

Canadians must consider how closer EU ties could erode national control and economic sovereignty

As Prime Minister Mark Carney attempts to deepen Canada’s relationship with the European Union and other supranational institutions, Canadians should be asking a hard question: how much of our national independence are we prepared to give away? If you want a glimpse of what happens when a country loses control over its currency, trade and democratic accountability, you need only look to Bulgaria.

On June 8, 2025, thousands of Bulgarians took to the streets in front of the country’s National Bank. Their message was clear: they want to keep the lev and stop the forced adoption of the euro, scheduled for Jan. 1, 2026.

Bulgaria, a southeastern European country and EU member since 2007, is preparing to join the eurozone—a bloc of 20 countries that share the euro as a common currency. The move would bind Bulgaria to the economic decisions of the European Central Bank, replacing its national currency with one managed from Brussels and Frankfurt.

The protest movement is a vivid example of the tensions that arise when national identity collides with centralized policy-making. It was organized by Vazrazdane, a nationalist, eurosceptic political party that has gained support by opposing what it sees as the erosion of Bulgarian sovereignty through European integration. Similar demonstrations took place in cities across the country.

At the heart of the unrest is a call for democratic accountability. Vazrazdane leader Konstantin Kostadinov appealed directly to EU leaders, arguing that Bulgarians should not be forced into the eurozone without a public vote. He noted that in Italy, referendums on the euro were allowed with support from less than one per cent of citizens, while in Bulgaria, more than 10 per cent calling for a referendum have been ignored.

Protesters warned that abandoning the lev without a public vote would amount to a betrayal of democracy. “If there is no lev, there is no Bulgaria,” some chanted. For them, the lev is not just a currency: it is a symbol of national independence.

Their fears are not unfounded. Across the eurozone, several countries have experienced higher prices and reduced purchasing power after adopting the euro. The loss of domestic control over monetary policy has led to economic decisions being dictated from afar. Inflation, declining living standards and external dependency are real concerns.

Canada is not Bulgaria. But it is not immune to the same dynamics. Through trade agreements, regulatory convergence and global commitments, Canada has already surrendered meaningful control over its economy and borders. Canadians rarely debate these trade-offs publicly, and almost never vote on them directly.

Carney, a former central banker with deep ties to global finance, has made clear his intention to align more closely with the European Union on economic and security matters. While partnership is not inherently wrong, it must come with strong democratic oversight. Canadians should not allow fundamental shifts in sovereignty to be handed off quietly to international bodies or technocratic elites.

What’s happening in Bulgaria is not just about the euro—it’s about a people demanding the right to chart their own course. Canadians should take note. Sovereignty is not lost in one dramatic act. It erodes incrementally: through treaties we don’t read, agreements we don’t question, and decisions made without our consent.

If democracy and national control still matter to Canadians, they would do well to pay attention.

Isidoros Karderinis was born in Athens, Greece. He is a journalist, foreign press correspondent, economist, novelist and poet. He is accredited by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a foreign press correspondent and has built a distinguished career in journalism and literature.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X