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

$15 Billion, Zero Assurances: Stellantis Abandons Brampton as Trudeau-Era Green Deal Collapses

Focal Points / 2 hours ago

Trump Walks Back His Tomahawk Tease from Zelensky

Business / 3 hours ago

Ford’s Whisky War

Automotive

$15 Billion, Zero Assurances: Stellantis Abandons Brampton as Trudeau-Era Green Deal Collapses

Published on October 18, 2025

Todayville

Dan Knight

Carney issues memos, Joly writes letters, and Freeland hides abroad—while 3,000 Canadian workers pay the price for a green gamble built on denial and delusion.

Stellantis has announced they’re leaving Brampton. That’s it. End of story.

Three thousand workers. Gone. A manufacturing base gutted. A city thrown into economic chaos. And a federal government left holding a $15 billion bag it handed over like a drunk tourist at a rigged poker table.

The Jeep Compass—the very vehicle they promised would anchor Ontario’s role in the so-called “EV transition”—will no longer be built in Canada. Production is moving to Belvidere, Illinois. The same company that cashed billions of your tax dollars under the banner of “green jobs” and “economic transformation” has slammed the door and walked out. And no, this isn’t a surprise. This was baked into the cake from day one.

Let’s rewind.

In April 2023, under Justin Trudeau’s government, Chrystia Freeland—then Finance Minister—and François-Philippe Champagne, the Industry Minister, announced what they called a “historic” agreement: a multi-billion-dollar subsidy package to Stellantis and LG Energy Solution to build an EV battery plant in Windsor, Ontario.

It was sold as a turning point. The future. A Green Revolution. Thousands of jobs. A new industrial strategy for Canada. But in reality? It was a Hail Mary pass by a government that had already crippled Canada’s energy sector and needed a shiny new narrative heading into an election cycle.

And here’s what they didn’t tell you: the deal had no enforceable commitment to keep auto production in Brampton. There were performance-based incentives—yes—but only for the battery plant. Not for the Brampton assembly line. Not for the existing workforce. And certainly not for ensuring the long-term health of Canada’s domestic auto industry.

They tied this country’s future to a globalist fantasy. A fantasy that assumed the United States would remain under the control of climate-obsessed technocrats like Joe Biden. A fantasy that required a compliant America pushing carbon neutrality, electric vehicle mandates, and billions in matching subsidies for green infrastructure.

But in November 2024, Americans said no.

Donald Trump was elected president. And just as he promised, he tore Biden’s green agenda to shreds. He pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord—again. He dismantled the EV mandates. He unleashed American oil and gas. But he didn’t stop there. Trump imposed a sweeping America First manufacturing policy, pairing 25% tariffs on imported goods with aggressive incentives to bring factories, jobs, and supply chains back onto U.S. soil.

And it’s working—because the United States doesn’t strangle its industries with the kind of red tape, carbon taxes, and bureaucratic self-sabotage that Canada does. Energy is cheaper, regulations are lighter, and capital actually wants to stay. So when companies like Stellantis look at the map, it’s no contest.

Now Stellantis, like any rational corporation, is doing what any business does under pressure: protecting its bottom line. They’re shifting production to a country that rewards investment instead of punishing it, a country that actually wants to build things again. That’s Trump’s America—competitive, unapologetic, and open for business—while Canada clings to a collapsing green fantasy and wonders why the factories keep leaving.

So what does Canada do in response? Our Prime Minister, Mark Carney, issues a carefully scripted memo on social media—not action, not legislation, not binding commitments—just a memo—reassuring workers he “stands by” the auto sector while offering vague promises about future budgets and long-term resilience. Lets be clear Carney isn’t saving jobs; he’s eulogizing them. Those 3,000 positions aren’t “paused” or “in transition.” They’re gone. Finished. Packed up and heading south. No memo, no committee, no press conference is bringing them back.

Chrystia Freeland, the architect of this mess, isn’t around to answer for any of it. She’s been conveniently shipped off to Kyiv, far from the consequences of the green boondoggles she helped engineer

And Industry Minister Mélanie Joly? She’s doing what this government does best: issuing strongly worded letters, drafted by lawyers, polished by comms teams, and lobbed into the void like they carry any real weight. She’s threatening legal action against Stellantis—vague, undefined, and almost certainly toothless. As if a global automaker backed by EU investors and billions in international capital is going to flinch because Ottawa wrote them a nasty note.

But let’s be absolutely clear here—what legal action? What’s the actual mechanism Ottawa is threatening to use? This wasn’t a blank cheque handed to Stellantis. According to public records, The $15 billion deal was built around performance-based incentives, structured to release funding only if Stellantis delivered on agreed milestones: production output, sales volume, battery module manufacturing at the Windsor facility. If they didn’t meet those metrics, they wouldn’t get paid. That’s the public line. That’s the defense.

Opposition Calls for Accountability

Conservatives, led by Raquel Dancho, are demanding real accountability, a formal investigation, a full reopening of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology (INDU) under Standing Order 106(4).

This isn’t a symbolic gesture. It’s a procedural weapon. When invoked, 106(4) forces Parliament to reconvene the committee, even if the government doesn’t want to, and compels ministers and officials to testify under oath. That’s what Dancho and her colleagues, Ted Falk, Michael Guglielmin, and Kathy Borrelli, have done. Their letter, dated October 15, 2025, demands that INDU immediately examine the Stellantis debacle — the $15 billion taxpayer-funded subsidy that failed to secure a single guarantee for Canadian auto jobs.

The letter is explicit. It references Stellantis’ decision to move Jeep Compass production from Brampton, Ontario to Illinois, a move that puts 3,000 Canadian jobs at risk despite the billions handed to the automaker under the Trudeau-Freeland-Carney green industrial strategy. It details how the federal and Ontario governments offered over $15 billion to secure battery plant investments, but with no enforceable job protection clauses to safeguard workers at Stellantis’s Canadian operations.

It doesn’t stop there. The letter points directly at Mark Carney, accusing him of breaking his promise to “put elbows up” and negotiate a fair deal with President Trump. It notes that Carney’s October 7th White House visit yielded nothing but new U.S. tariffs on Canadian autos and lumber, while Stellantis and GM expanded their operations south of the border. “Mark Carney broke his promise,” the MPs write, “and his weakness abroad is costing Canadian jobs at home.”

Dancho’s accompanying tweet lays out the message clearly and without spin:

“Stellantis received up to $15 billion in taxpayer subsidies—with no assurances of job retention in Canada. Yesterday, Stellantis announced that they were moving production to the U.S. and investing $13 billion in their economy. Conservatives are calling to reconvene the Industry Committee to study this decision and learn how such a failure happened. While the Liberals pat themselves on the back for announcements and rhetoric, auto workers are being told that their jobs are on the chopping block. They deserve clarity.”

Dancho’s move changes the game. With the NDP gutted and no longer shielding the government in committee, the opposition finally has the numbers and the mandate to dig. Ministers like Mélanie Joly and François-Philippe Champagne will now have to answer, under oath, for the deals they signed. Officials from Innovation, Finance, and Employment Canada will be subpoenaed to explain what oversight, if any, was built into the Stellantis agreements.

Final thoughts

I wrote about this when the deal was signed, and I wasn’t guessing. I said it plainly: this $15 billion green industrial experiment was a reckless, ideological bet that depended entirely on Donald Trump not winning the presidency.

Now here we are. Trump’s back in office — and he’s gone even further than I predicted. He didn’t just rip up Biden’s climate agenda; he imposed broad “America First” tariffs across the board to drag manufacturing back onto U.S. soil. Twenty-five percent duties on Canadian and Mexican goods, combined with tax breaks and energy policies that make it cheaper to produce in America than anywhere else. That single move detonated the fragile logic behind Trudeau and Freeland’s so-called industrial strategy.

So Stellantis did what any corporation would do when faced with a government that punishes production and a neighbour that rewards it: it packed up and left. The company took billions in Canadian subsidies, thanked Ottawa for the free money, then announced a $13 billion expansion in the United States—under Trump’s protectionist umbrella.

Let’s be clear: when I bet, I bet smart. I hedge. I read the table. I make damn sure I’m holding something real. These people—the Liberal government—went all in with a high card and a hollow narrative, betting your tax dollars on a political fantasy. They thought they could bluff their way into an industrial renaissance while ignoring the shift happening just across the border.

And you want final thoughts? Here they are: I am absolutely sickened by the people responsible for this disaster and you know exactly who I mean. Chrystia Freeland, who vanished from Cabinet and failed up into some made up ambassador’s post, her entire political career a string of bailouts, virtue signals, and globalist pageantry. And François-Philippe Champagne, the man who handed out our tax dollars like Monopoly money and couldn’t negotiate a cup of coffee without being outplayed.

They won an election based on this. Based on lies. Based on phony climate promises and fake job projections and polls manipulated by the same Mainstream Media that cashes federal subsidy cheques while calling themselves journalists. Do you think they’re going to hold Champagne accountable? Do you think they’re going to track Freeland down between photo ops in Kyiv and ask how 3,000 Canadian families are supposed to pay their mortgage now?

Of course not. They’re all on the same payroll.

Well guess what, I’m not. I don’t take their money. I don’t need their approval. And I am not shutting up. Not now. Not until that committee gets answers. Not until those ministers are dragged before Parliament. And not until Chrystia Freeland and François-Philippe Champagne are fired for the betrayal they’ve inflicted on Canadian workers.

This isn’t over. Not by a long shot. I’m going to bang this drum until it splits. And every time they try to bury this story, I’ll be there digging it back up. You’ve been lied to. Robbed. Betrayed. And someone is finally going to answer for it.

So stay tuned. Stay loud. And for God’s sake, stay angry.

I’m an independent Canadian journalist exposing corruption, delivering unfiltered truths and untold stories.

Join me on Substack for fearless reporting that goes beyond headlines

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

Focal Points

Trump Walks Back His Tomahawk Tease from Zelensky

Published on October 18, 2025

Todayville

By John Leake

The President meets with the Ukrainian dictator but prudently declines to give him the long range missiles he seeks.

Yesterday, after seeing reports of Zelensky meeting with Raytheon executives before his scheduled meeting with President Trump at the White House, I wrote an essay expressing my dismay at how the President has—since he entered office eight months ago—walked back his campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine. Instead, he has recently made statements suggesting a willingness to escalate the war, most notably by giving Ukraine long range missiles that can be armed with nuclear warheads.

Some of my readers objected to my suggestion that the U.S. government’s relationship with Ukraine is now so corrupt that Zelensky could get the missiles he seeks without following proper legal procedures. They should consider that the U.S. government has sent billions of money and weapons to Ukraine—long ruled by a money-laundering oligarchy —without any accounting.

Now comes the news that President Trump walked back his Tomahawk tease in his meeting with Zelensky. As he put it:

That is why we are here. Tomahawks are very dangerous… It could mean escalation – a lot of bad things could happen. Hopefully we will be able to get this war over with without thinking about Tomahawks. I think we are pretty close to that.

We thank President Trump for his prudence and we hope he will continue on the same path of prudence.

Yesterday, our NATO partner Poland allowed the alleged Ukrainian lead perpetrator of the Nord Stream pipeline bombing to walk free. Such is the fantastically corrupt world in which we are now living.

The war in Ukraine is yet another species of globalist, criminal humbug that in no way serves the interests of the American people. Consider that, while we constantly hear about the “existential threat” of climate change from carbon emissions, there has been no talk in the media—including the hysterical “climate change” German media—about the fact that the Nord Stream sabotage released between 150 million and 300 million cubic meters of gas—the equivalent to roughly 5.3 to 11 billion cubic feet.

This was the largest single industrial release of natural gas, which is largely composed of methane, widely characterized as a potent “greenhouse gas.” Bill Gates is always prattling on about the need to get rid of cattle because the ruminants release methane. I haven’t heard him say a word about Nord Stream.

If I were President Trump, I would tell Zelensky the following:

1). You and your predecessors should have never listened to the idiot U.S. foreign policy establishment of my predecessors—an establishment that has ruined every country it has touched since Vietnam. Every single blowhard Neocon foreign policy wonk in this city is a total retard.

2). I am going to use my executive power—provided by the U.S. Constitution—to end the reckless and criminal foreign policies of my predecessors, including their insane policies with respect to Russia and Ukraine since the Cold War ended in 1991.

3). The United States has always maintained elections, even in wartime, and I was elected to end U.S. involvement in your war against Russia.

4). The American people I represent have no quarrel with the Russian people, and they therefore object to American weapons being used to kill Russians. To give you long range missiles to use against Russia would significantly elevate the risk of the Russians eventually using their long range missiles to strike American targets.

5). I am bound by my oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution to serve the American people, and not the interests of warring parties 5,000 miles away, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

6). I will assist you in peace negotiations with the Russians, but I will not escalate this conflict in a gambit to extract better concessions from Russia. Such an escalation will only result in more needless death and destruction, and it risks spinning out of control—a scenario deemed to be unacceptably risky during the Cold War.

7). I intend to inaugurate a new era of friendship and cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, based on the interests of our people, and not the U.S. national security state and Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned about in 1961. This Establishment has doggedly maintained a state of enmity with Russia for its own selfish interests.

8). I will offer Russia numerous incentives to give Ukraine a fair deal in peace negotiations, but effective immediately, I am terminating all military aid to Ukraine, as well as all military intelligence and targeting assistance.

9). Here’s a $7,000 cash gift from me to you as private pals. Please stop by Anderson & Sheppard tailor in London on your way back to Kiev and get fitted for a suit. You look ridiculous in that silly outfit and you’ll need a suit for our Budapest summit with Vladimir.

Share

Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.