National
“No public events scheduled”

|
|
The PM is on a national campaign tour. He lies about it every day.
Here’s Justin Trudeau at the Saldenah Mas Camp in Toronto on July 18. Volunteers spend months making costumes every year for the Toronto Caribbean Festival. It’s a fantastic tradition. My father, who lived in Barbados for a while, used to drive us up from Sarnia every year for the parade.
The prime minister’s public itinerary, which is emailed daily to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery and posted on his website, said that on July 18 he’d be in Ottawa for the Change of Command ceremony. It acknowledged no other public event.
The itinerary usually goes out around 7 p.m. each night and lists the PM’s public activities for the next day. Then on the morning of the day, we get an itinerary that either repeats the night-before email, or modifies it. On July 15 the night-before itinerary said the prime minister would be in “Southwestern Ontario” and would have “no public events scheduled” the next day, July 16.
Here’s where it gets a little weird. I never received an itinerary for July 16 that said anything else. The itinerary that went out on the morning of July 16, like the night-before email on the 15th, said “no public events scheduled.” But on the PM’s website, the itinerary that’s there now lists a meeting with Kitchener mayor Barry Vrbanovic.
Later that day, Trudeau was in Scarborough at Junior Carnival. “You could just feel the energy in the air!”, the PM tweeted.
The first I learned of the PM’s meeting with Kitchener mayor Vrbanovic was when reporters received a pool report from a CP reporter, a couple of hours after the meeting ended.
Paul Wells is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Pool reports have been used in many countries for many years. If there’s not room for every reporter or photographer who might want to attend, a smaller number are designated, on the understanding that they’ll share their observations and images with everyone who couldn’t go. It’s not great, because typically the pool reporter is not permitted to ask questions.
Sometimes journalists vote to determine who among them will be the pool. Sometimes it’s a Canadian Press reporter, by tradition and convention. In all recent cases with Trudeau, it’s been a CP reporter — because no other news organization except CP has been informed of these events.
There’s also a separate broadcast pool, in which all the broadcast networks participate. That way one camera goes to pooled events, and every network gets the images and audio.
The CP reporter’s account of the Vrbanovic meeting said Vrbanovic “thanked Trudeau for his government’s programs that provide funding to municipalities.” Trudeau “said he will discuss issues that matter to the region including housing and climate change with Vrbanovic.” At this point, “The pool reporter was then asked to leave the room.” I’ll bet she was.
So here’s what I’m here to write about today. This has become standard operating procedure for Justin Trudeau and his staff during the difficult summer of 2024: they claim in public every day that the the PM has “no public events scheduled.” Even though he is in a different city every day. And he has public events scheduled. In fact, he is in the city in question so he can attend the public events he claims aren’t on his schedule.
And a small number of journalists are told, every day, “for information purposes only” — i.e., on the condition that they not tell other journalists or the public — about the public events the PM has scheduled but is lying about.
On Monday Trudeau’s itinerary said he was in “Northern Alberta” and had “no public events scheduled.” Later on Monday he was in Hinton, AB to “get a briefing on the status of the Jasper wildfire, as well as meet with the province’s premier and evacuees who fled the blaze.” I know this because it was in the CP report. “Trudeau did not speak with reporters while he was in Hinton,” the story adds.
I wrote about this on Notes, Substack’s fun short-form social-media platform. A reader responded (and here I paraphrase) that, well, maybe the PM wanted to do serious business in a crisis situation without having to dodge snarky questions from rude reporters. And, you know what? Fair enough.
Thank you for reading Paul Wells. This post is public so feel free to share it.
Share
But here’s the thing. I’ve covered a lot of political leaders in emergency settings. It’s perfectly routine for the advisory to say what a leader will do today, but to say a given event is “Closed to Media.” Or for reporters to be sequestered in a room, well away from the meeting between PM and premier, with time for questions only after the meeting ends.
What’s rarer — what I’d never actually seen before — is for a PM to fly to Alberta, for his staff to say he’s going to be in Alberta, but for them to claim he won’t be doing anything while he’s there.
Incidentally, the version of the PM’s itinerary for Monday that’s on his website now says he had a meeting with Danielle Smith and with emergency responders. This version was never sent to reporters, either before or after the meeting. Absurdly, the itinerary has also been corrected to put Hinton in “Central Alberta” instead of “Northern Alberta.”
A colleague at a large news organization who’s vocationally preoccupied with following politicians’ schedules tells me this has happened “multiple times” in recent weeks: the itinerary on the website gets updated after the fact, in ways that do not reflect what reporters were told in real time. This is the smallest possible routine coverup, for the smallest possible benefit, that I have ever seen.
Pretty soon, news organizations are going to have to start explaining why Justin Trudeau’s summer schedule is so surprising to us.
Here’s Justin Trudeau making a “surprise appearance” at Vancouver Pride on Sunday. Here’s the PM making a “surprise appearance” at Winnipeg’s Filipino Folklorama pavilion on Monday. I’m here to tell you, reporters were not informed of either event — except the ones who were given a quiet heads-up so there’d be cameras on hand. Although how can you be expected to believe me? The PM’s gaslighting website says he “will attend” Pride on Sunday. At least they haven’t rigged the Monday advisory so it retroactively lies about having told us he’d be at the Winnipeg event.
I suspect today’s post will create some buzz, so I want to be careful to say precisely what I mean to say. Politicians are under no obligation to tell anybody how they spend every minute of their day. (It’s worth noting, however, that the public agendas of leaders in other places are sometimes more detailed than in Ottawa: here’s Emmanuel Macron’s and Joe Biden’s agendas for today. The UK’s Keir Starmer seems less forthcoming.) And it’s routine for leaders’ teams to acknowledge calendar events while also emphasizing that the public and journalists can’t attend. What’s an innovation is this business of claiming the PM has nothing “public” on his schedule when he is, in fact, on tour to do public events for which he will seek tightly controlled media and social-media credit.
It’s become entertaining to learn, after the fact, what the hell has been going on. Last week the PM was on vacation in British Columbia. We receive daily itineraries during a vacation, with no public events scheduled, and I don’t begrudge anyone any vacation time. Then he was back in Ottawa for two days, and then he was back in the “Lower Mainland” of BC with “no public events scheduled.” That was Pride, as it turned out. I’m pretty sure that when the big guy was on an airplane for the second time in as many days, he knew why. Eventually so did we.
Since I’ve started making a fuss about this stuff on Notes, I think the PMO is starting to get nervous. Here’s the itinerary we were sent for today, Tuesday, at 7:03 a.m. EDT:
And here’s the updated itinerary we received at 2:33 p.m.
Thanks for the update! Unfortunately, every event in the updated itinerary occurred before the PMO sent it out. When covering your tracks, try not to be so terrible at it. Fortunately the pool report should be landing in my inbox any minute.
I asked Andrea Baillie, the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Press, for an explanation of the national newsgathering cooperative’s role in these activities. She replied:
“It’s long been part of CP’s mandate to be with prime ministers as they carry out their duties. Alongside major broadcasters, we provide ‘pool coverage.’ That means we gather details on what the PM said and did on behalf of all press gallery journalists, at events where there is limited space. Typically, the PMO provides embargoed information (i.e. times and locations) on the PM’s schedule on short notice so we can get there on time. The pool is bound by an agreement to use this information for planning purposes only until the events take place, at which point the CP reporter provides details on what they saw and heard in a note sent to all press gallery journalists.”
I want to be clear that I intend no criticism of CP, which has come in for some cheap shots from Pierre Poilievre and others. Reporters who are told of politicians’ activities ahead of time routinely keep this information to themselves, as I have done for politicians from many parties. Including, come to think of it, while covering elections in other countries. It’s the only way to reconcile coverage of an event with politicians’ preference for planning in secrecy. In particular, readers who are quick to dream up heroic scenarios for reporters to act as their proxy to sabotage politicians’ schemes — You should just refuse to cover it! You should just shout your questions until they’re forced to answer! — are typically less thrilled when reporters try that stuff against the politicians they like better.
But reporters are obviously getting played here. When the prime minister of Canada deploys half-way across the country, with his staff photographer and videographers; and then tells hundreds of journalists he’s got nothing planned for the next day or the day dawning; and smaller numbers of journalists already know that’s not true; and then the PM meets public officials or crowds of voters, speaks on public-policy issues, and sends out his own shop’s versions of those conversations and professionally curated images; and then (I can’t believe I’m writing this part) his staff sneaks into the website to cover their tracks ex post facto — well, this is a lake of bullshit so deep I can’t touch bottom, and at the very least, we should let you know it’s going on.
Now watch the commenters under this post line up, like iron filings in a magnetic field, to reveal their polarity.
People who hope the Liberals will win will be furious at me for nitpicking. THIS MAN IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNTRY AND YOU JUST WANT TO TEAR HIM DOWN, they’ll say. YOU’RE NO BETTER THAN BOB FIFE. HE’S SMART TO KEEP YOU AWAY FROM SERIOUS WORK.
The ones who wanted him gone years ago will say, AH-HA. THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS PLOTTING WITH LIBERALS TO HIDE THE SATANIC PM. YOU HOWLED WHEN POILIEVRE DID FAR LESS, BUT NOW YOU’RE PLOTTING! PLOTTING! WITH YOUR LIBERAL PAYMASTERS.
What’s much rarer will be voters who would actively prefer, say, a Liberal government that doesn’t routinely lie about what its PM is doing. Let me tell you, I sure notice every time a supporter of the Liberals who claims to support the Liberals because they like honest reporting and evidence-based policy suddenly complains about the reporting and evidence that make their guy look bad.
As for Poilievre, I’ve written about his media manipulation at length and, I suspect, will again. These attitudes — good coverage good, bad coverage wicked and worth any artifice to avoid — are widespread and party-agnostic. But it’s worth pointing out that Poilievre now routinely sends out advance notice of his rallies, and has lately been setting aside a few minutes for brief sessions with individual reporters after such events. This one with a Sudbury reporter was chippy but informative; this one with The Gazette’s Aaron Derfel caught Poilievre in a relatively introspective mood.
Mostly I’m not surprised when any public figure avoids scrutiny. Journalistic scrutiny is so rare these days, for reasons I’ve written about at length, that nobody should be surprised when it draws an annoyed and defensive reaction from politicians who view any surprise as an attack. Or, indeed, from anybody at all. “Freedom of the press” loses friends quickly in almost any concrete case.
But again, I’ve never seen this before, a Prime Minister of Canada who demands that his staff enable him as he claims to be taking the summer off even as he’s campaigning for re-election. One more irony: If you’re paying half the salary of most Canadian journalists, even while you’re sending emails to them full of lies about your schedule, you’ve made destroying their credibility a very expensive object of government policy.
Finally, what does all this tell us about the year Justin Trudeau’s having?
I’m not Catholic, but I view this extended fibbing campaign as a venial rather than a mortal sin. It’s mostly kind of baffling.
But it has precedent. In his memoir, Trudeau recollects the times he introduced himself as “Jason Tremblay” or as “Justin St-Clair” as a student or a young adult, to avoid being judged before he could make his case. He learned early how much of himself he wanted others to see.
What’s harder to discern is the point of the artifice. Trudeau gave an extended interview to the CBC days before the disastrous Toronto—St. Paul’s byelection. Within days after the returns from St. Paul’s were in, he adopted this duck-and-cover routine. To what end? Does he seriously hope to pick up 15 points of polling deficit by pushing out Instagram photos of parade floats? Does he think he can keep this up for a year until an election?
While we wait to find out, if I were on the PM’s communications staff and I had pre-existing plans to be working somewhere else in a year, this would be an excellent week to resign, because this week you’d get to do it on principle.
I hear the PM will be in St. John’s tomorrow. Tonight we’ll see whether it’s on the itinerary.For the full experience, subscribe to Paul Wells.
Alberta
Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.
Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.
His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.
On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.
To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.
The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”
Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.
Economy
Carney’s Promise of Expediting Resource Projects Feels Like a Modern Version of the Wicked Stepmother from Disney’s Cinderella

From Energy Now
By Tammy Nemeth
Canada’s ongoing saga around interminable delays for infrastructure and resource development has not necessarily improved under Mark Carney’s Liberal government. Hopes were raised in oil, gas, and mining boardrooms with the seemingly sensible words coming from Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson and Prime Minister Carney himself about expediting projects and developing Canada as a (clean) and conventional energy superpower. But that “clean” part is usually whispered like a corporate secret, possibly in the hope that Alberta and others won’t notice. This situation feels like a modern version of Cinderella, where promises come from the wicked stepmother with impossible conditions: The big “IF”.
In Disney’s 1950 animated film Cinderella, there is a scene where Cinderella presents an invitation to the royal ball to her stepmother, Lady Tremaine. Despite Cinderella’s eligibility, Lady Tremaine imposes a condition: She may attend only IF she completes an overwhelming list of chores. This disingenuous offer, cloaked in fairness, ensures Cinderella’s exclusion, much to the delight of her jealous stepsisters. Similarly, Canada’s resource development process appears to promise opportunity while imposing conditions that may prove unattainable.
The premiers from all the provinces were invited by the Prime Minister to come cap-in-hand with a list of projects they feel are in the “national interest”. Some suggested it was like giving a business pitch to the panel at Dragon’s Den. Hardly an appropriate situation to be in for the First Ministers of the Federation. It is a revealing indication of how far the consideration of the Premiers has fallen in the esteem of Ottawa and its media mouthpieces. Nevertheless, the Premiers duly arrived in Saskatoon to have a conversation about Ottawa’s ambitions for Canadian resource and industrial development and presented their list of projects. Most left the meeting hoping for the best.
Later that day, Prime Minister Carney released his criteria for acceptable projects, which are quite vague—the devil is always in the details. From the Prime Minister’s website:
“As a first step, First Ministers discussed projects of national interest which fit the following criteria, subject to consultation with Indigenous Peoples whose rights may be affected:
- Strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience, and security.
- Offer undeniable benefits to Canada and support economic growth.
- Have a high likelihood of successful execution.
- Are a high priority for Indigenous leaders.
- Have clean growth potential, such as the use of clean technologies and sustainable practices.”
These general statements leave a great deal open to interpretation and much of it is in the eye of the beholder. For example, Quebec will not join a consensus or support any project for which it doesn’t receive a direct benefit in terms of ongoing employment, royalty sharing, or other revenue.
As for conventional energy, Prime Minister Carney said he supports decarbonized oil. This would be a nod to the proposed Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) project of the Pathways Alliance, an incredibly expensive proposition for which the alliance is seeking various tax breaks and inducements to commit to the multi-billion dollar endeavour. It seems that support for an oil pipeline to the east or west would only tentatively come once that CCS project is complete or nearing completion.
Carney also says that there needs to be a “national consensus” on projects in order to be short listed. Who decides what is in the national interest or if a “national consensus” exists? Well, that would be the Prime Minister’s squad in Ottawa. What criteria or metrics will be used for those determinations? No one outside Carney’s circle knows. Prime Minister Carney said recently there would be a “process put in place to arrive at a [national] consensus” on projects.
If the Premiers thought these important details might be clarified in the implementing legislation, then they thought wrong. Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, merely codifies the five generic principles, mentions “energy” generally (which can be interpreted many ways), and does nothing to solve the problems with existing legislation that has created the regulatory morass for projects in the first place. Creating a “fast track” for only certain politically select projects, to bypass issues with the “regular track”, proves the existing system is too slow and ought to be corrected: Politically selected exceptions do not solve systemic problems.
The legislation also grants Cabinet sole power and discretion without any scrutiny or transparency on the decisions: “in respect of a project, the Governor in Council [Cabinet] may consider any factor that the Governor in Council considers relevant…” [emphasis added]. That is a very broad power that can be wielded in any number of ways, including forcing uneconomic high voltage electricity interconnections from eastern Canada to western provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta. Essentially, Cabinet can do whatever it wants with respect to so-called “national” projects and is protected by Cabinet confidence in making those decisions.
Canadian premiers and the oil, gas, and mining companies are being confronted with a whole lot of “IFs” for potential projects all of which will be left to the arbitrary and secretive discretion of Cabinet. Which company will put the investment of time and money into an application process that has so many potential arbitrary and capricious ways to be rejected? So far, Canada’s process under its net zero by 2050 framework has been like betting on Cinderella to make the ball without a fairy godmother.
Prime Minister Carney is saying he encourages resource development applications but is offering several conditions that may prove impossible to meet for Alberta, Saskatchewan, and resource companies. Resource companies, wary of investing in a process rife with uncertainty, may hesitate to commit resources to projects that face rejection on subjective and capricious grounds. If Canada wants to dance at the global energy ball, it needs clear procedural and regulatory rules, not a wicked stepmother’s to-do list.
As Jess Kline of the National Post says, the criteria, “pretty much gives politicians licence to reject any project for any reason at all.” While many may be cautiously optimistic that such arbitrariness will be overcome by pragmatism and the realities of an economy hungry for reliable affordable energy, could it be that Canada’s resource development is facing the veiled meanness of a wicked stepmother?
Ambiguity is the enemy of action. Canada needs a clear, fair, timely approval process that balances environmental goals with economic needs. Without it, provinces and industries may stay stuck in an ongoing story where opportunities are promised but never delivered.
Tammy Nemeth is a U.K.-based energy analyst
-
Crime1 day ago
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
-
Addictions1 day ago
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day ago
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
-
Business1 day ago
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Courageous Discourse1 day ago
Healthcare Blockbuster – RFK Jr removes all 17 members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel!
-
Business9 hours ago
EU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Health23 hours ago
RFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill